Generative AI and Argument Creativity

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.22329/il.v44i1.8258

Louise Vigeant

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generative AI appears to threaten argument creativity. Because of its capacity to generate coherent texts, individuals are likely to integrate its ideas, and not their own, into arguments, thereby reducing their creative contribution. This article argues that this view is mistaken—it rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of creativity. Within arguments, creative and critical thinking cannot be separated. Because creativity is enmeshed with skills such as analysis and evaluation, the use of generative AI in the construction of arguments, especially in the role as universal audience, has the potential to heighten, not diminish argument creativity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

生成式人工智能与论证创造力

生成式人工智能似乎威胁着论证的创造性。由于人工智能有能力生成连贯的文本，因此个人很可能将人工智能的想法而非自己的想法融入论证中，从而减少了自己的创造性贡献。本文认为这种观点是错误的--它建立在对创造力本质的误解之上。在论证过程中，创造性思维和批判性思维是不可分割的。由于创造力与分析和评估等技能密不可分，因此在构建论证过程中使用生成式人工智能，尤其是在扮演普遍受众的角色时，有可能提高而不是降低论证的创造力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.