21
22

How helpful are LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) for studying philosophy? (self.askphilosophy)

submitted by sinkdori

I've found that AI can be useful when learning concepts within different disciplines (e.g. medicine, nutrition) at the undergrad and lower levels, especially if their topics are already well-solidified.

If I were to come across a difficult passage of a philosophical text, would I benefit from using Claude or ChatGPT (given that it's a decently good model) to help me break it down and understand it (a personal teacher of sorts)?

If no, I would then ask: is it be better to do the more 'traditional' method of reading secondary/scholarly texts or searching for a youtube video for an answer?

If yes, when would it be appropriate? For example, should I first try to wrestle with the ideas myself before consulting AI?

Ultimately, I'm worried that if I am too reliant on AI, I am going to end up outsourcing the skill of thinking -- the very thing which acts as the foundation for philosophy.

all 19 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Themoopanator123phil of physics, phil. of science, metaphysics 65 points66 points  (2 children)

To join the chorus of answers, be very careful.

I have used LLMs in the past to help with research. Basically just as a glorified search engine. E.g. it may well be that I have an idea and then think “someone must have written on this before”. Things like this are difficult to search for in traditional search engines but if you explain the idea to an LLM it can try to dig up relevant reading. This can be helpful.

LLM summaries may also be helpful for just getting an idea of what a paper contains so that you can tell if it will actually be helpful to read.

The issue in both cases, however, is that they just make so many fucking mistakes. And they will just continuously BS to you about the content of papers, pretending that they’re more relevant to your interests than they really are. I’m not sure how this can be fixed (i.e. with well optimised prompts) or perhaps whether it simply cannot be fixed.

But the upshot is this: do NOT use it as a replacement for reading or thinking. It will often mislead you and it will smooth out your brain.

[–]disturbedtophatPhilosophy of Mind 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I agree completely, it can be genuinely helpful when you have a very specific search query and want to find targeted resources related to that, and the Google results are just a bit too general

But asking it to craft arguments, write posts or papers, or even summarize articles for you can be a recipe for disaster

[–]Personal-Succotash33 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Anecdotally, I tried learning about moral realism from AI, and specifically work from people like Scanlon and Parfit. Terrible idea. AI just can not understand the nuances of an idea or how to differentiate two similar but different views.

At best, it can tell you where to look for what, and how to get started in studying a specific field. But then you could just google that question, or go on this subreddit (they have their own problems but still).

[–]ladiesngentlemenplzphil. of science and tech., phenomenology, ancient 145 points146 points  (0 children)

I am worried that if I am too reliant on AI, I am going to end up outsourcing the skill of thinking -- the very thing which acts as the foundation for philosophy.

Sounds like a reasonable worry to me.
Learning to read difficult texts is a big part of learning to understand other people's perspectives which is a big part of learning to think critically.

[–]Rustaincontinental 24 points25 points  (0 children)

at least when it comes to reading and writing, two crucial skills in philosophy, I can think of these two papers on the impact of LLM:

https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(26)00003-3

[–]Doink11Aesthetics, Philosophy of Technology, Ethics 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You shouldn't rely on an LLM to understand any discipline, but philosophy is especially unsuited for it. Not only are they not helpful, they can be an active detriment to your understandings. It's not even that you're "outsourcing your thinking"; its that there is no guarantee that an LLM's summary or "interpretation" of a text is correct. So if you're trusting a summary generated by ChatGPT, you're as likely to be "learning" something entirely wrong.

You should read secondary texts written by actual people with experience and understanding if you need help understanding a primary text.

[–]uisge-beathaethics & moral psychology 24 points25 points  (2 children)

So, I haven't used LLMs much but one of my colleagues does a little.
LLMs can give you quick summaries of large blocks of text. At their best, they can get the gist of an idea across quite well.

My hesitation with them for philosophy is that LLMs do this by conflating things, eliding over detail, and giving a zoomed-out, general and somewhat vague description. It's usually not wrong because it's making claims that are too general to be wrong. The difficulty with philosophy is that the specifics and the details are where all the action is for this or that argument, so I'm just not sure it's a useful general tool.

In terms of the use case you have in mind, I think it could be useful. You're reading something and get to a particularly tricky part. One thing that is helpful is to look for Companion books ([Publisher's] Companion to [Philosopher's] [Text]). Another is to check out SEP or IEP. Another is to talk to people who know more about it. (This sub is also a good place to check particular understanding issues).

But giving an LLM a pass at a particularly difficult passage isn't a terrible idea, as long as you bear in mind that it's a very imperfect tool and probably doesn't have good training data for dense philosophy texts. It can be a support tool, worth a try here and there, of real though limited use.

[–]raccoon-rex 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Yeah, LLMs are honestly fine for bird’s eye overviews but that’s the kind of knowledge you’d want to enter courses with, not leave with

[–]uisge-beathaethics & moral psychology 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i think that's a good way of drawing the distinction, yeah. (gonna steal that and use it on my students XD )

[–]Saberenmetaethics, phil. of religion 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I use it to critique my own positions and come up with counter arguments. I find it pretty effective, at least in my fields of interest. Other's mileage may vary.

[–]AloneAndCuriousethics, political phil. 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I find them indispensable for finding books. I will often describe an idea in my own words and ask it if anyone’s ever thought something like this. And then it will identify the most relevant philosopher, and fetch me there most relevant texts. Which I can then read.

Every other use I’ve tried it fails at horrifically.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]bobthebobbestMarx, continental, Latin American phil. 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you search the subreddit, you’ll see that this is asked here pretty routinely, and good answers have been given.