3 ms·

I think he understands that, he just is refreshed by being able to interact with an apparently reasonable intelligent agent rather than a lawyer.

• cjbprime 3y ago
  There's no skepticism in the post, for example making the opposite argument in his "But <my opinion, X> is true, right?" conversational style, and seeing whether ChatGPT tells him just as readily that he "is correct" and it "appreciates the clarification" and he is "raising an astute point". Lessig is famous, but lawyers -- especially famous ones -- are not known for their resistance to intellectual flattery. I think it is fair to describe this lack of skepticism as a fatal flaw in the blog post (and a potentially significant flaw in its author). The blog post was supposed to be about how AIs can be convinced by reason, but the author did not actually assess, or show curiosity about, whether reason is a requirement for convincing them in any way. That's not a small blind spot; the mention in the final paragraph of "But I'll confess that this persuadable intelligence has seduced me." seems to be confessing more than it intended to.