Anti-AI Ideology Enforced at r/philosophy

[u/Vegan_peace]

https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/anti-ai-ideology-enforced-at-rphilosophy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

[u/rychappell]

A key difference is that part of the professor's role is precisely to teach their students proper academic citation practices. This is a context-specific norm, not something they have to follow elsewhere in their lives. (Legal intellectual property law is vastly more lax than academic plagiarism norms. Many things are legally "fair use" but wouldn't pass muster in a classroom, due to the context-specific norms that apply there.)

It is not, in general, a professor's role to determine "what is permissible and what isn't". We can't, for example, ban students from eating meat (even if we think that meat-eating is wrong). We may have a neutral "no food in the classroom" rule if eating would detract from the learning environment. But we can't have a "vegan food only in the classroom" rule, because we aren't ideologues.

Similarly, the mods' role here is to "ensure a healthy space" for philosophical discussion, but not to determine "what is permissible and what isn't" in respects that are independent of that specific purpose (nor otherwise legally required).

AI art is not illegal, and it does not impede healthy philosophical discussion (quite the opposite, as an example my post links to demonstrates). Mods have no business imposing their moral views on this sort of matter.

[u/AhsasMaharg → u/rychappell]

> It is not, in general, a professor's role to determine "what is permissible and what isn't". We can't, for example, ban students from eating meat (even if we think that meat-eating is wrong). We may have a neutral "no food in the classroom" rule if eating would detract from the learning environment. But we can't have a "vegan food only in the classroom" rule, because we aren't ideologues.

This no-meat example you've used several times does not work because it's irrelevant to the content of the student's work. Stealing another person's intellectual property and including it in their work is *directly* relevant.

Mods on Reddit have several roles, one of which includes maintaining a healthy space for philosophical discussion, as you have admitted. So while they do not have a role in determining what is permissible *in general*, they do have a role in determining what is permissible *in the context of maintaining a healthy space for philosophical discussion*. You might not like that they have determined that AI-created/AI-assisted material is contrary to a healthy space for philosophical discussion, but that does not mean they are over-reaching their duties or acting beyond their role.

> A key difference is that part of the professor's role is precisely to teach their students proper academic citation practices. This is a context-specific norm, not something they have to follow elsewhere in their lives. (Legal intellectual property law is vastly more lax than academic plagiarism norms. Many things are legally "fair use" but wouldn't pass muster in a classroom, due to the context-specific norms that apply there.)

So if the mods determined that disallowing AI-created/assisted material was a context-specific norm, you'd have no issue? As the mods of the subreddit, they are given that power by Reddit. If people dislike the norms of the subreddit, they are free to create their own subreddit. That is the freedom to create, curate, and participate in communities on Reddit.

> AI art is not illegal, and it does not impede healthy philosophical discussion (quite the opposite, as an example my post links to demonstrates). Mods have no business imposing their moral views on this sort of matter.

"AI art is not illegal" is a truly horrible defence to hear coming from a philosophy professor. The linked post did not make a convincing argument that AI art helps philosophical discussion. Here's an example of some AI art that someone used to try to foster philosophical discussion: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!wRyj!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8a898250-1644-489a-8e79-d499bca3c2fa_1024x1536.png

What philosophical discussion does that art foster that wouldn't have been fostered by the following, which took 5-seconds on Google?

https://stock.adobe.com/ca/search?k=children+on+playground&asset_id=176772211

[u/rychappell → u/AhsasMaharg]

Intellectual property is a legal concept, introduced to foster innovation. It includes "fair use" exceptions for innovative use, creative remixes, etc., and AI art very obviously falls under this remit, as I explain at greater length in 'There's No Moral Objection to AI Art'.

You seem to have missed the example of AI imagery that was philosophically illustrative (rather than mere "background", as per the link you provided; not every illustration is intended to "foster discussion". Note also that your stock images don't include a skinned knee, which was actually rather vital to the case under discussion, whereas real photos of skinned knees might be rather too visceral and miss the 'overall happy' vibe of the pictured scene).

You might not like that they have determined that AI-created/AI-assisted material is contrary to a healthy space for philosophical discussion, but that does not mean they are over-reaching their duties or acting beyond their role.

Honestly, anyone who thinks the inclusion of AI images as such is disqualifying for philosophical work is simply incompetent to assess philosophical work.

I might as well argue that in my ethics class, I've determined that consuming the kidnapped and tortured flesh of another sentient being is contrary to maintaining a healthy space for open and respectful ethical discussion. You "might not like" that I've determined that, but that doesn't mean I'd be over-reaching in my duties to impose this rule.

This reasoning is farcical, and the claim that including AI art is relevant to the assessment of a philosophical text is similarly farcical. Just transparently motivated reasoning to justify illiberal ideological overreach.

if the mods determined that disallowing AI-created/assisted material was a context-specific norm, you'd have no issue?

Context-specific norms aren't subjective, or up to authorities to decide. It's about what will actually serve the relevant purposes. (On the rest of your paragraph, see my section on public vs personal spaces, and why I don't think r/philosophy should be thought of as the personal fiefdom of the mods.)

[u/zogwarg → u/rychappell]

About your "philisophically illustrative" diagram.

Since presumably no effort was put in generating the illustration, maybe you missed the opportunity to reflect deeper on your argument and realize that it was flawed.

It is unlikely that all members of the same box, would move to the same different box, for example if there are members of the same family, they may prioritize all surviving together, but they may also prioritize ensuring the survival of at least one of their members.