An AI Analyzes Philosophers’ Discussion of AI

Last week I posted about PhilLit, a new AI research tool for philosophers that finds and summarizes philosophical writing. The post generated a lot of comments, which prompted one reader to run a little experiment. The experiment consisted in having ChatGPT read the post, predict the comments, read the actual comments, and explain why its prediction did not match reality. It was conducted by Kelly Truelove and can be read in its entirety here. The result of the experiment included some observations about philosophers and AI right now, which I think are worth sharing. It’s not that they’re earth-shattering insights. Rather they’re like a mirror—you may not know exactly how you look before you glance at it, but you’ll recognize yourself when you do. So what did ChatGPT predict philosophers would say about PhilLit? Well, it’s a purpose-built tool and the AI assumed we’d largely assess it as such: Among professional philosophers who read Daily Nous, I would expect a mix of curiosity, cautious optimism, and skepticism. Many will find the idea appealing, since keeping up with adjacent literatures is genuinely difficult, and a tool that promises verified citations and structured overviews targets a real pain point in research practice. Some, especially those who already use AI tools experimentally, will likely be eager to test it and compare it to their own knowledge of a field. At the same time, there will likely be strong skepticism about reliability, philosophical sensitivity, and hidden biases. Philosophers are trained to worry about subtle mischaracterizations of positions, selective framing of debates, and the normative assumptions built into any system that “maps” a literature. Even if citations are verified, critics may question whether the tool captures the dialectical structure of debates accurately or whether it privileges certain journals, traditions, or methodologies. Finally, I would expect meta-level concerns about professional norms and incentives. Some may worry that such tools could deskill graduate students, flatten intellectual diversity, or encourage superficial engagement with literatures. Others will see it as analogous to earlier research technologies—like PhilPapers or online databases—arguing that, if used responsibly, it could simply become another standard aid in serious scholarship. But that wasn’t quite the whole story. After reading the actual comments, ChatGPT says “The comments.. The post An AI Analyzes Philosophers’ Discussion of AI first appeared on Daily Nous.