I confess I’ve been relying more and more on AI for digging into a new thing I’m curious about. There’s something very engaging and genuinely productive in being able to frame questions in my own way, ask my own follow-ups, chase my own rabbits.
But as I read this morning through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on philosophy of technology, I’m thinking about the trade-offs. The authors have put so much care into distilling and organizing the conversation. They’ve made thoughtful decisions about where to be critical and where to be neutral. I don’t agree with them on everything, but the fact that I’m forced to stick with their point of view for 50 pages means there’s a far greater chance that I’ll be persuaded about something new or that I’ll come away with a sharper sense of my own ideas. AI doesn’t have a point of view to stick with.