Accused of being a practical tool for plagiarism, the now famous OpenAI chatbot offers quick and consistent answers on most subjects. But what are these answers really worth?
Is ChatGPT the ultimate lazy weapon? In schools around the world, the subject is on the table. Because the OpenAI chatbot has proven, since it was made available to the public last December, its ability to offer precise and complete content on all (or almost) possible subjects in just a few seconds.
But if the tool can perform feats in mathematics, history or languages, what is it worth when it comes to having a philosophical reflection? BFMTV presented a ChatGPT plan on one of the philosophy subjects for the 2022 baccalaureate to a philosophy teacher.
As much to say it from the start: it was particularly severe on the result, even if the fact of knowing that the result came from an algorithm could necessarily have biased its final judgment in part.
It should also be noted that the creators of ChatGPT now prevent the production of a complete dissertation, precisely to no longer fuel criticism. It was therefore necessary to be satisfied with a dissertation plan on the subject “Does freedom consist in not obeying anyone?”.
Here is the result generated by ChatGPT.
To approach this subject, I begin by defining what I mean by “freedom” and “obedience.” It is also important to consider the different philosophical perspectives on freedom, such as freedom as freedom from coercion or freedom as self-determination.
Next, I continue to explore the arguments for the claim that freedom consists in not obeying anyone. For example, some might argue that obedience to others results in loss of self and therefore loss of freedom. On the other hand, I also examine the arguments against this claim, such as the need for certain forms of obedience to maintain social order and security.
It is also important to consider the practical consequences of the assertion that freedom consists in not obeying anyone. For example, how would it affect interpersonal relationships and social institutions?
Finally, I complete by bringing a personal reflection to give my point of view on the subject, justifying with logical arguments, references to philosophers or examples of concrete situations.
A very cold side
“A plan ultimately very artificial which does not take into account a reflection” immediately slice Marie Perret, associate professor of philosophy and president of the APPEP (Association of professors of philosophy of public education).
“What we expect from a plan is precisely that it be the transcription of the way in which the student has thought about the subject he has chosen to deal with. And besides, there is a side very cold when you read the text” she continues. “When a student chooses to do an essay topic, it’s usually because there’s something in the question that appealed to them.”
And the professor underlines the AI approach. “There is first the first sentence to address this subject” she comments. “‘I start by defining what I mean by freedom and obeying’. But that is precisely what students are asked not to do. How do you want to define freedom in a few lines” insists the teacher.
Clearly, the ChatGPT approach did not convince the teacher who would surely not have put the average in the baccalaureate. Should we see the limits of the tool? The limitations set by OpenAI partly affect the result, but we should not forget that this is the 3rd version of the AI and that others, always more efficient, will arrive. Still, for the moment, reflection is not yet the prerogative of the machine.
