Description

Riley Harper
Abstract: We have now seen three ethical theories as well as their pitfalls. We have also thoroughly discussed their applications to the justifiability of Chat GPT. Now it is your turn to demonstrate your own understanding and

mastery of these philosophical concepts.
1 Is the use of Chat-GPT justifiable in academic settings?
To what extent, or under what circumstances, is the use of Chat-GPT justifiable in academic settings? Use (at least) one of the above principles as a supporting argument for your position. Argue for your position in one page or less.
From a consequentialist standpoint, the justification for using Chat-GPT in academia hinges on the outcomes it produces. If the use of AI leads to enhanced learning experiences, more thorough research, and a broader understanding of subjects, then its application is not only justifiable but recommended. The ability of AI to process and synthesize information at a scale unattainable by humans alone can, objectively, lead to significant advancements in knowledge and understanding. In complex fields like Statistics and Analytics or Biology and Medicine, AI can quickly analyze vast datasets, providing insights that might take much longer to discern through manual analysis. Further, AI can be used to enhance past experiments that lacked access to the modern technology we now possess in the modern age. An example of this was presented in Origins [Brown, 2017] related to Miller and Urey’s experiments [Miller, 1953] on recreating the ”primordial soup.” Although the subject of this book was science fiction, the idea was not so far fetched to have an AI work on better recreating the early earth conditions and to combine this with technological simulation across centuries or longer rather than a few months as was used in the original paper written by Miller and Urey.
Virtue ethics, originated by philosophers such as Aristotle, focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions. This ethical theory suggests that behavioral ethics stem from the virtues ingrained in the individual. Virtue ethics prompts us to consider how the use of Chat GPT in academia aligns with the virtues or moral character we seek to foster both in educators and in students. One of the key virtues in academic settings is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. Chat-GPT, as an advanced data collection and anaylsis tool, aligns well with this virtue. It can serve as an aid in the relentless quest for knowledge, providing students and researchers with quick access to a wide range of information and diverse perspectives. This tool can enhance one’s capacity for critical thinking and understanding, as it offers insights and data that might originally be inaccessible or difficult to comprehend to the reader. In this way, Chat-GPT can be seen as an extension of one’s intellectual virtues, facilitating a deeper engagement with learning materials and promoting intellectual growth. Furthermore, the virtue of curiosity is inherently linked to academic endeavors.
Chat-GPT can also serve as a catalyst for curiosity, opening up new avenues of inquiry and exploration through new innovations such as symbolic AI. By providing diverse viewpoints and covering a broad range of topics, it can inspire users to delve deeper into subjects, ask more profound questions, and explore areas they might not have considered otherwise. One example of this was demonstrated in a recently published paper on abstract reasoning in a classical problem involving the Raven’s Progressive matrices (RPM) test, as demonstrated in Figure 2.
In conclusion, from the perspective of consequentialism and virtue ethics, the use of Chat-GPT in academia can be justified when it aligns with and supports the expansion and pursuit of knowledge and curiosity. AI has become not just a tool for information retrieval and analysis, but also a means of enriching the educational experience and contributing to the moral development of those engaged in scholarly pursuits.
2 Counterargument
In no more than half a page, consider and refute a potential objection to the position you staked out in the above question.

3 Appendix

References in the Discussion
[Brown, 2017] Brown, D. (2017). Origin. Doubleday, New York.
[Miller, 1953] Miller, S. L. (1953). A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science, 117(3046):528–529.