-1

Under which meta-ethical theories can we forfeit any rights?

what gives?

10
  • 1
    What are you talking about? It's not clear how the question & the link you give are related.
    – D. Halsey
    Mar 22, 2023 at 17:52
  • my Chat gpt answer got deleted by a mod @D.Halsey
    – user65174
    Mar 22, 2023 at 17:57
  • An answer from Chat GPT may or may not be very reliable. It's too early to consider it as an authoritative source, so I can understand why it wouldn't be allowed on this site. Comparing it to unreferenced opinions doesn't help your case either, since those aren't encouraged here.
    – D. Halsey
    Mar 22, 2023 at 20:02
  • in reality, do they get deleted? only if someone finds them offensive, which is a pretty subjective judgment it seems @D.Halsey currently there is an unreferenced answer advising people how to take revenge without getting caught out, on +6. this site makes no sense
    – user65174
    Mar 22, 2023 at 20:45
  • 2
    I'm sure they could do more to discourage opinions, but that doesn't mean they should allow Chat gpt.
    – D. Halsey
    Mar 22, 2023 at 21:27
  • 3
    Cross-site duplicate - ChatGPT produces plausible-looking answers that are often subtly wrong. Mar 23, 2023 at 1:41
  • but the same could be said of unreferenced opinions @EJoshuaS-StandwithUkraine
    – user65174
    Mar 23, 2023 at 13:19
  • @zero If someone writes an unreferenced opinion, feel free to downvote. Mar 23, 2023 at 13:52
  • pissing in the wind really @EJoshuaS-StandwithUkraine there's too many with too many +ve scores. i suppose that at least it's someone's "philosophy" rather than just poor research
    – user65174
    Mar 23, 2023 at 14:04
  • Did you use ChatGPT as a starting point, or did you just copy/paste whatever it generated? There'd seem to be little hazard in asking ChatGPT something to inform your own answer -- much like you might consult a calculator.
    – Nat
    Apr 7, 2023 at 9:03

2 Answers 2

5

My own experience of trying out some philosophical questions with ChatGPT has rather mixed results. With simple questions like, "Do universals exist?", "What is Quine's criterion of existence?" and "What are the main positions in the epistemology of logic?" I received some pretty good answers. But that said, you can get much more comprehensive answers to questions like these by looking up the subjects in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

On the other hand, with some more subtle questions to do with non-classical logics, the logic of conditionals, and the work of particular authors with whom I'm familiar, I received answers that were partially correct, sometimes misleading, and sometimes completely wrong. ChatGPT thinks that the material conditional is not truth-functional, for example.

As it stands, I wouldn't rely on ChatGPT for questions about logic, unless it is very simple Logic 101 stuff. You are much better off asking me! Or some of the other knowledgeable people here.

The answer you linked about forfeiting of rights seems like a reasonable summary, though I don't have any expert knowledge of this area. If I were interested in the subject I would be quite happy with that as a starting point with a view to following up the references.

But as far as Stack Exchange goes, an answer that consists of little more than an extended quote from a book, paper, encyclopedia article, etc., is deprecated, as are answers that consist of nothing more than references.

1
  • i would rather read a long quote with no comment than someone's opinion
    – user65174
    Mar 23, 2023 at 13:15
3

So I do agree that too much unreferenced opinion passes as philosophical answering, though in general the site does a good job in moderating this with its deletions and closures.

The question in my mind is “why is it an important part of the answer that ChatGPT said it?” If you are appealing to ChatGPT as a verified source, then merely enclosing the words in a quote tag is an insufficient attribution.

If you’re invoking ChatGPT as such in a quote, this should be a proper citation - with an independent verification as to the specific conversation reference in which it was given. Otherwise, there’s a kind of rhetorical abuse of form going on here, and this is very prone to fabrication and unrepeatability.

On the other hand if you’re just cribbing it to save you time on composing an answer, you’d be better placed to acknowledge it as an inspiration for your answer, but the direct quotation would be misleading.

You must log in to answer this question.