Mark Coeckelbergh’s and David J. Gunkel’s critical analysis compels us to reevaluate our understanding of authorship, language, and the generation of meaning in the realm of Artificial Intelligence. The analysis of ChatGPT extrapolates beyond a mere understanding of the model as an algorithmic tool, but rather as an active participant in the construction of language and meaning, challenging longstanding preconceptions around authorship. The key argument lies in the subversion of traditional metaphysics, offering a vantage point from which to reinterpret the role of language and ethics in AI.
The research further offers a critique of Platonic metaphysics, which has historically served as the underpinning for many normative questions. The authors advance an anti-foundationalist perspective, suggesting that the performances and the materiality of text, inherently, possess and create their own meaning and value. The discourse decouples questions of ethics and semantics from their metaphysical moorings, thereby directly challenging traditional conceptions of moral and semantic authority.
Contextualizing the ChatGPT
The examination of ChatGPT provides a distinct perspective on the ways AI can be seen as a participant in authorship and meaning-making processes. Grounded in the extensive training data and iterative development of the model, the role of the AI is reframed, transgressing the conventional image of AI as an impersonal tool for human use. The underlying argument asserts the importance of acknowledging the role of AI in not only generating text but also in constructing meaning, thereby influencing the larger context in which it operates. In doing so, the article probes the interplay between large language models, authorship, and the very nature of language, reflecting on the ethical and philosophical considerations intertwined within.
The discourse contextualizes the subject within the framework of linguistic performativity, emphasizing the transformative dynamics of AI in our understanding of authorship and text generation. Specifically, the authors argue that in the context of ChatGPT, authorship is diffused, moving beyond the sole dominion of the human user to a shared responsibility with the AI system. The textual productions of AI become not mere reflections of pre-established human language patterns, but also active components in the construction of new narratives and meaning. This unique proposition incites a paradigm shift in our understanding of large language models, and the author provides a substantive foundation for this perspective within the framework of the research.
Anti-foundationalism, Ethical Pluralism and AI
The authors champion a view of language and meaning as a contingent, socially negotiated construct, thereby challenging the Platonic metaphysical model that prioritizes absolute truth or meaning. Within the sphere of AI, this perspective disavows the idea of a univocal foundation for value and meaning, asserting instead that AI systems like ChatGPT contribute to meaning-making processes in their interactions and performances. This stance, while likely to incite concerns of relativism, is supported by scholarly concepts such as ethical pluralism and an appreciation of diverse standards, which envision shared norms coexisting with a spectrum of interpretations. The authors extend this philosophical foundation to the development of large language models, arguing for an ethical approach that forefronts the needs and values of a diverse range of stakeholders in the evolution of this technology.
A central theme of the authors’ exploration is the application of ethical pluralism within AI technologies, specifically large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. This approach, inherently opposed to any absolute metaphysics, prioritizes cooperation, respect, and continuous renewal of standards. As the authors propose, it’s not about the unilateral decision-making rooted in absolutist beliefs, but rather about co-creation and negotiation of what is acceptable and desirable in a society that is as diverse as its ever-evolving standards. It underscores the role of technologies such as ChatGPT as active agents in the co-construction of meaning, emphasising the need for these technologies to be developed and used responsibly. This responsibility, according to the author, should account for the needs and values of a range of stakeholders, both human and non-human, thus incorporating a wider ethical concern into the AI discourse.
A Turn Towards Responsibility and Future Research Directions
Drawing from the philosophies of Levinas, the authors advocate for a dramatic change in approach, proposing that instead of basing the principles on metaphysical foundations, they should spring from ethical considerations. The authors argue that this shift is a critical necessity for preventing technological practices from devolving into power games. Here, the notion of responsibility extends beyond human agents and encompasses non-human otherness as well, implying a clear departure from traditional anthropocentric paradigms. This proposal requires recognizing the social and technological generation of truth and meaning, acknowledging the performative power structures embedded in technology, and considering the capability to respond to a broad range of others. Consequently, this outlook presents a forward-looking perspective on the ethics and politics of AI technologies, emphasizing the necessity for democratic discussion, ethical reflection, and acknowledgment of their primary role in shaping the path of AI.
This’ critical approach shifts the discourse from the metaphysical to ethical and political questions, prompting considerations about the nature of “good” performances and processes, and the factors determining them. Future investigations should further probe the relationship between power, technology, and authorship, with emphasis on the dynamics of exclusion and marginalization in these processes. The author calls for practical effort and empirical research to uncover the human and nonhuman labour involved in AI technologies, and to examine the fairness of existing decision-making processes. This nexus between technology, philosophy, and language invites interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inquiries, encompassing fields such as philosophy, linguistics, literature, and more. The authors’ assertions reframe the understanding of authorship and language in the age of AI, presenting a call for a more comprehensive exploration of these interrelated domains in the context of advanced technologies like ChatGPT.
Abstract
Large language models such as ChatGPT enable users to automatically produce text but also raise ethical concerns, for example about authorship and deception. This paper analyses and discusses some key philosophical assumptions in these debates, in particular assumptions about authorship and language and—our focus—the use of the appearance/reality distinction. We show that there are alternative views of what goes on with ChatGPT that do not rely on this distinction. For this purpose, we deploy the two phased approach of deconstruction and relate our finds to questions regarding authorship and language in the humanities. We also identify and respond to two common counter-objections in order to show the ethical appeal and practical use of our proposal.
ChatGPT: deconstructing the debate and moving it forward