“When readers found the reality about how the e-book was created, many had been harm. I deeply remorse that, however it was mandatory,” he says.
WIRED interviewed Colamedici in a dialog that explored the nuances of his challenge.
This interview has been edited for size and readability.
WIRED: What was the inspiration for the philosophical experiment?
Andrea Colamedici: Initially, I train immediate considering on the European Institute of Design and I lead a analysis challenge on synthetic intelligence and thought techniques on the College of Foggia. Working with my college students, I realised that they had been utilizing ChatGPT within the worst doable approach: to repeat from it. I noticed that they had been shedding an understanding of life by counting on AI, which is alarming, as a result of we dwell in an period the place we have now entry to an ocean of information, however we don’t know what to do with it. I’d usually warn them: “You may get good grades, even construct an amazing profession utilizing ChatGPT to cheat, however you’ll turn into empty.” I’ve skilled professors from a number of Italian universities and lots of ask me: “When can I cease studying find out how to use ChatGPT?” The reply is rarely. It’s not about finishing an schooling in AI, however about how you study when utilizing it.”
We should preserve our curiosity alive whereas utilizing this software accurately and educating it to work how we wish it to. All of it begins from an important distinction: There’s info that makes you passive, that erodes your skill to assume over time, and there may be info that challenges you, that makes you smarter by pushing you past your limits. That is how we must always use AI: as an interlocutor that helps us assume in another way. In any other case, we received’t perceive that these instruments are designed by large tech corporations that impose a sure ideology. They select the info, the connections amongst it, and, above all, they deal with us as prospects to be glad. If we use AI this manner, it’s going to solely verify our biases. We’ll assume we’re proper, however in actuality we is not going to be considering; we can be digitally embraced. We will’t afford this numbness. This was the start line of the e-book. The second problem was find out how to describe what is occurring now. For Gilles Deleuze, philosophy is the power to create ideas, and as we speak we’d like new ones to know our actuality. With out them, we’re misplaced. Simply have a look at Trump’s Gaza video—generated by AI—or the provocations of figures like Musk. With out strong conceptual instruments, we’re shipwrecked. thinker creates ideas which can be like keys permitting us to know the world.
What was your objective with the brand new e-book?
The e-book seeks to do three issues: to assist readers turn into AI literate, to invent a brand new idea for this period, and to be theoretical and sensible on the similar time. When readers found the reality about how the e-book was created, many had been harm. I deeply remorse that, however it was mandatory. Some individuals have mentioned, “I want this creator existed.” Nicely, he doesn’t. We should perceive that we construct our personal narratives. If we don’t, the far proper will monopolize the narratives, create myths, and we’ll spend our lives fact-checking whereas they write historical past. We will’t permit that to occur.
How did you employ AI that can assist you write this philosophical essay?
I wish to make clear that AI didn’t write the essay. Sure, I used synthetic intelligence, however not in a standard approach. I developed a way that I train on the European Institute of Design, based mostly on creating opposition. It’s a mind-set and utilizing machine studying in an antagonistic approach. I didn’t ask the machine to write down for me, however as a substitute it generated concepts after which I used GPT and Claude to critique them, to offer me views on what I had written. Every little thing written within the e-book is mine. Synthetic intelligence is a software that we should study to make use of, as a result of if we misuse it—and “misuse” contains treating it as a type of oracle, asking it to “inform me the reply to the world’s questions; clarify to me why I exist”—then we lose our skill to assume. We turn into silly. Nam June Paik, an amazing artist of the Nineteen Nineties, mentioned: “I exploit expertise to be able to hate it correctly.” And that’s what we should do: perceive it, as a result of if we don’t, it’s going to use us. AI will turn into the software that large tech makes use of to manage us and manipulate us. We should study to make use of these instruments accurately; in any other case, we’ll be dealing with a significant issue.