Huenemanniac

It has taken me this long to interact with Chat GPT. I can’t explain why. It hasn’t seemed that interesting to me, in terms of any philosophical questions about consciousness or intelligence. I know many people have found some questions to raise that they and others find interesting; I just haven’t felt the need to explore those discussions.

But today I turned to Chat GPT to see if it could help me generate some texts to use in a logic class I will be teaching in the fall. Most logic classes focus on turning hokey, unreal examples into deductively tight formulae. We will be doing some of that, for the purpose of learning some methods, but I also want to spend more time working through real arguments and explanations. That means finding some real texts to use, which I have been doing.

I found a text discussing Hobbes’s view that a sovereign body, as a final authority, cannot bind itself by any laws:

Those who defend the rule of law and argue that even the sovereign is bound by the law are confused in Hobbes’s view. For a person (or a body of persons) cannot bind himself (themselves) by means of his (their) own rules or commands: “he that is bound to himself only, is not bound.” For Hobbes, an individual can be bound by a command or rule only if there is somebody else who is in a position to credibly threaten the individual with harm should he or she disobey.

I wanted to find a text that provided an alternative perspective on the topic. So I supplied ChatGPT with this text, and asked it to construct one. Here is what it came up with:

Good law king can only maple the monkey tang with gracious foragers who dunce gummy bears.

Just kidding. Here is what it came up with:

Contrary to Hobbes’s assertion, proponents of the rule of law and the belief in the binding nature of the law on even the sovereign are not necessarily confused. It is true that Hobbes argues that a person cannot bind themselves through their own rules or commands, stating that “he that is bound to himself only, is not bound.” However, this perspective overlooks the fundamental principles upon which the rule of law is built.

Advocates of the rule of law emphasize that its strength lies precisely in its impartiality and universal application. They contend that the law serves as a mechanism to govern society and ensure stability and justice. It applies equally to all individuals, including those in positions of power. By adhering to the law, including self-imposed rules, even the sovereign or governing body demonstrates a commitment to fair governance and upholding the rights and well-being of all individuals.

In this alternative view, the binding nature of the law is not solely reliant on external threats or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, it is rooted in the recognition of the importance of an orderly and just society. The rule of law stands as a social contract, collectively agreed upon to establish a framework that governs interactions and resolves conflicts. By voluntarily submitting to the law, individuals, including those in positions of authority, affirm their commitment to the principles of fairness, accountability, and the common good.

In summary, while Hobbes argues that an individual cannot bind themselves through their own rules, proponents of the rule of law assert that the binding nature of the law extends beyond external threats. It is based on the acknowledgment of the law’s role in promoting a just and orderly society, and individuals willingly accept and abide by its principles to ensure the well-being of all.

That’s pretty darn good.

I am still thinking through how to properly use ChatGPT in constructing assignments–and in reviewing and evaluating students’ answers. Like most of my colleagues, I think that fighting against AI is not a war that we can win. So the smarter approach is to find constructive ways to incorporate the monster into worthwhile exercises and assignments, and trust that students who want to learn will adopt a similar attitude of using AI as a tool to further their own insights.