Revisiting Issues of The Use of AI in Epicurean Philosophy

New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius  

    • New
    Quote from Don

    If the goal is Epicurean evangelism and the argument is that those ends justify any means, that path leads down eventually (and admittedly hyperbolically) to Epicurean-prompted bots posting endlessly to FB, X, Instagram, etc., and replying algorithmically to human generated questions and comments, just to get the message out.

    From my perspective, Epicurean philosophy is a human-centered philosophy based in human senses and human feelings and human reason in response to the natural, material world as humans experience it. Generative AI removes the human element from creative work, and the human element is what gives authenticity to what's expressed in those creations.

    I think this does a pretty good job of identifying the issues I am currently considering.

    And it immediately evokes in my mind the hypothetical of the "experience machine" and the issues involved in PD10.

    The world is currently going through changes that probably are going to exceed that of the industrial revolution. It's commonplace to see movies and articles talking about AI leading to mass population reduction and worse.

    Quote

    Generative AI removes the human element from creative work, and the human element is what gives authenticity to what's expressed in those creations.

    This is the question that is often posed and while I am still thinking it through I don't think I actually or can afford to agree. As to actuality, it doesn't "remove" the human element - it's a tool. And as for practicality, the forces arrayed against "us" - meaning against those who support living according to Epicurean philosophy - are too great to unilaterally disarm and give up this tool, which at the moment I see likely to become necessary forself-preservation.


    Quote from Don

    that path leads down eventually (and admittedly hyperbolically) to Epicurean-prompted bots posting endlessly to FB, X, Instagram, etc., and replying algorithmically to human generated questions and comments, just to get the message out.

    And would that necessarily be a bad thing? Once again the considerations of PD10 apply - if there are methods by which we actually succeed in establishing and preserving an actual community of living Epicureans. would we say "Nah that's not worth the use of AI to do so because I find it makes me uneasy / is despicable"?

    The question keeps asking itself over and over in different ways. As I see it, there's no way to get around asking "What is the ACTUAL result of the use of any tool or method - including AI?

    At least at the moment my personal answer is that it doesn't make any difference who or what or how a presentation that is accurate, well-expressed, and persuasive is produced. If it meets those tests then it is useful no matter who or how produced. if it doesn't meet those test, then it makes no difference who produced it or how. The only ultimate test is "What happens if we pursue this course of action vs what happens if we don't?"

    No doubt different people are going to make different predictions about that result, but I don't think it is justifiable to draw a red line because as we all agree in Epicurean philosophy there is no "fate," and I doubt anyone can justify concluding that every aspect of AI is one of "necessity."

    • New
    Quote from Cassius

    And would that necessarily be a bad thing? Once again the considerations of PD10 apply - if there are methods by which we actually succeed in establishing and preserving an actual community of living Epicureans.

    And therein lies the rub. In my scenario of bots posting and responding algorithmically, there is no "actual community of living Epicureans." There may be unlimited "Epicurean" content online in this scenario, but there is no community, no real Epicureans, just AI bots posting, responding, commenting. One person could program a bot or bots to do all this. A community can't be one person sitting in a Garden with a laptop.

    If one wants an "actual community of living Epicureans," you need actual living humans interacting with each other, online and in-person. Increasing content posted everywhere created by generative AI doesn't get humans to have meaningful interactions with other humans.

    Quote from Cassius

    the hypothetical of the "experience machine" and the issues involved in PD10.

    LOL That's a whole other kettle of fish for (yet) another thread. Come at me, bro! I'll throw down on PD10, dude! (I'm doing my best to channel some trash-talking WWE wrestler here. I'll take my Oscar now ^^)

    Quote from Cassius

    it doesn't "remove" the human element - it's a tool. And as for practicality, the forces arrayed against "us" - meaning against those who support living according to Epicurean philosophy - are too great to unilaterally disarm and give up this tool, which at the moment I see likely to become necessary forself-preservation.

    Sure, I'll concede generative AI is a tool. And I'm consciously using generative AI to get away from using "AI" as some generic acronym. Tools are great. The Internet is a tool. A wrench is a tool. One can use the Internet to post misinformation and harassment. One can use a wrench to change your car battery or to bludgeon someone. If one uses an AI application to analyze a huge dataset to help research cancer cures, that's a great use of a tool. If an AI application is used to model weather data to predict severe weather and to save lives, :thumbup:. If someone uses generative AI to create computer code and something goes wrong, you can't ask the coder "Why did you write this line this way instead of that way?" Software engineers can be asked. Generative AI has no idea, that was just the prediction of what came next in their LLM modeling data. I use this same analogy about articles. If an AI-generated article has a turn of phrase or a point is made, and someone asks "That's clever. Could you tell me where that came from? Could you expand on that point?" there's no there there. Generative AI is a black box. If a human writes an article, we can ask the human to expand on a point. We can disagree with a human. We can have a discussion with a human. There is NO opportunity to "have a discussion" with an AI bot. There's the verisimilitude of a conversation, but conversations happen between people.

    So, how we use any tool - or use the right tool for the right job - needs to be a conscious human decision. Does the tool enhance human abilities or does it replace uniquely human abilities.

    • New
    Quote from Don

    If an AI application is used to model weather data to predict severe weather and to save lives, :thumbup: . If someone uses generative AI to create computer code and something goes wrong, you can't ask the coder "Why did you write this line this way instead of that way?" Software engineers can be asked. G

    Yes as I see it that is the test - the actual result. You would not want to turn loose generative AI without human supervision and without the ability for a human to override the Ai when it is wrong, as it often will be. I think that's pretty much the dividing line between what is acceptable and what is not. Because if indeed we use generative AI to actually and in fact reach people with genuine Epicurean presentations that would not otherwise be available to them, and we also make sure that there is human supervision that allows the human to engage, ask questions, and participate with real humans, then that's in my mind an example where the specificc end justifies the specific means.

    • New

    Another specific hypothetical:

    Suppose a human in 1965 who is creative but not a musician decides that he can use AI to produce a song that is as beautiful and catchy as anything produced by the Beatles, and also specifically brings to the listeners' attention genuine Epicurean arguments as to no life after death and no supernatural gods. It would make Epicurus's name and genuine teaching as famous as any name used as the title of any famous love song.

    Now someone is likely going to say "that's not possible" (our Experience machine PD10 argument again) but i am simply going to disagree firmly. If it's not already possible, it's going to be possible soon.

    Would a Lucretius or a Diogenes of Oinoanda or a Philodemus say "No, I'm not going to do that, because AI makes me very uneasy. It doesn't matter if I could "change the world" overnight and bring consciousness of Epicurean ideas to millions of real humans at essentially no cost."

    I'm sure there are some who would say "Yes that's exactly what they would say - they'd refuse to do it."

    And my response to that is that I would diplomatically but firmly disagree.

    As in my earlier comments as to the Industrial Revolution, i think the arguments we're concerned about now are already becoming obsolete in younger generations, and the specific concerns we have are going to die with us.

    Younger people are already being acclimated to the idea that no image or video or document can be trusted at face value, because it may be AI generated.

    That's not entirely a bad thing and it may not be a bad thing at all. We've always had illusions to deal with as Lucretius discusses in Book 4. And much of what we've been taught over the last 2000 years is fraudulent as well. It's probably long past time to take anything or anyone at face value. We should always test whether an assertion is in fact really true, and what implications will arise if it is in fact believed versus those if it is not.

    • New
    Quote from Cassius

    if indeed we use generative AI to actually and in fact reach people with genuine Epicurean presentations that would not otherwise be available to them,

    Okay, so with that context, what's the selling point of generative AI over just creating content the "old fashioned" way and putting it out there?

    Using your articles specifically, what did the generative AI application give you that you couldn't have brought to the work by composing them without the AI tool?

    What does a generative AI tool do to "reach people" that is not available without that tool?

    • New
    Quote from Cassius

    Suppose a human in 1965 who is creative but not a musician decides that he can use AI to produce a song that is as beautiful and catchy as anything produced by the Beatles, and also specifically brings to the listeners' attention genuine Epicurean arguments as to no life after death and no supernatural gods. It would make Epicurus's name and genuine teaching as famous as any name used as the title of any famous love song.

    Your scenario is still just positing an imitation of a Beatles song, and the "musician" didn't create it. The algorithm did, admittedly using a training data set of Epicurean texts, I suppose. Is it really Epicurus' "genuine teaching" if it's an algorithmic summary? We've seen that gone awry in tests on this forum.

    Quote from Cassius

    if I could "change the world" overnight and bring consciousness of Epicurean ideas to millions of real humans at essentially no cost."

    Could you really change the world overnight? That seems like AI hype and hyperbole. Again, what does the AI tool bring that seeking out a partnership with an actual musician and working with them to write a catchy song doesn't? Is it harder and more expensive to work with a human being and working on rhymes and rhythms with them than plugging in a prompt to ChatGPT? Of course! But the end is a human creative work with REAL meaning and intentionality behind the words. If you want a song, work to create a song.

    There IS a real cost to using AI: socially, creatively, economically, environmentally. "At essentially no cost" is a figment of the collective imagination surrounding AI. I'm curious if you'd be as enthusiastic about generative AI if everyone had to pay what it actually cost to run the queries and prompts. It would not be cheap, and right now the hyperscalers and generative AI companies subsidize the technology to shoehorn it into everything. They want to get people hooked, like a drug dealer giving the first hit or two for free.

    • New

    TauPhi  Don  Cassius and fellow forum members: Perhaps some reactions to the editorial use of AI are based on mis-perceptions. If you already know this, you quite understand my comment here.

    As an award-winning fiction author, I hired a highly accomplished New York publishing industry editor to get my work to the best of my ability. He did not substantively change my story, nor add to the intense research I did on historical events, but he helped me structure the chapters and some paragraphs, and occasionally made some of my sentences sing. BUT in every specific case, he made clear my decision on accepting or rejecting his advice was final.

    I can guarantee that everything we read in the best journals and magazines in popular media and in academia, is reviewed by an official or unofficial team and it is modified to present the best product possible. This is no different from using an AI in its present simple form.

    I am not aware of instances in either commercial or academic publishing where the author(s) notate their work to identify editorial help. (Exceptions can be seen in long-form books where the author usually thanks at least some of their editorial team.)

    As to what AI actually does when it is asked: Current publicly available AI only recognizes patterns in its database that may match and answer the question asked of it. It doesn’t think about other questions, if it can be said to think at all. It only recognizes possible answers and spits out the best answer responsive to the specific request. If one asks the AI for editorial assistance on structure, syntax, or grammar, that is all it will provide.

    I suggest the question is no different now with the use of AI than it is for human editorial assistance.

    Dave Tamanini

    Harrisburg, PA, USA

    • New
    Quote from Don

    Using your articles specifically, what did the generative AI application give you that you couldn't have brought to the work by composing them without the AI tool?

    What does a generative AI tool do to "reach people" that is not available without that tool

    Great question. Ultimately nothing that I could not have done alone given enough time and effort. But it is an exponential force multiplier that allows things to be possible in reasonable time and effort which would not have been possible without it.

    The graphics are another example - I could "never" have done those myself, yet the "message" of the graphic is entirely at my direction.

    • New

    I deleted my LinkedIn account a few weeks ago.

    (Quick side-note, AI killed my industry a few month ago, so I'm trying to get into technical writing).

    The last activity I registered on LinkedIn was a comment thread about the ethics of using AI in self-published authors' works. The comment section was active, mostly with (per their profiles) employed professionals who made livings producing all kinds of literature. The author published the post as a question: "What % of your book can ethically be written by AI?"

    My response of "0%" was met with unanimous hostility.

    ... specifics aside, they're all professionals, and none of them expressed commitment to functionally writing all of their own, well, writings. Each one of them was defending the position that an author's job boils down to, "One, solid thesis statement. THAT'S the real brilliance." Seriously, the thing they thought made them "skilled writers" was their capacity to write a solid thesis statement, not brainstorming, not research, not education, not outlining, not production, not editing, the editing, the editing, the editing, the editing, the endless editing that can fall to infinity.

    Regardless of whether or not a ghost writer is made of silicon, the ghost writer is the real writer of a piece of literature, not the superficial name attached to the cover. That goes for everything.

    They're not putting the same effort into their professional tasks that you two, Cassius and Don are here, as is also Bryan and Joshuaand many, many others on this forum who dedicate extensive study to a pursuit (and doing so without a financial incentive).

    It's frustrating, and I have a lot of criticism about it ... but, as of now, it's also the case. I think I have to let go of the hot ball of spite I've been clutching, because I can't stop this. We can't put the lid back on this box. We'll just have to deal with it, and, if recent experience is any indicator, we're going to go through a period where ... let's just say I'm really hoping that our species won't split, and everyone connected to AI will become Eloi and the rest of us will become Morlocks.

    I've seen great uses of AI, and I've seen abominable uses for it. I think we're all still working all of this out. Every new tool throughout human society has always been disruptive. It always allows new people make new fortunes while threatening the stability of those who have already prospered. It eliminates old lifestyles and presents new options. We'll each have to figure out what to do with it, and, eventually, we'll collectively form opinions about the desirability of it to continue.

    In the meantime, I'm no longer using spellcheck. :P

    • New
    Quote from Eikadistes

    let's just say I'm really hoping that our species won't split, and everyone connected to AI will become Eloi and the rest of us will become Morlocks.

    As some say but I am saying without any sarcasm to you, as the phrase goes, "hope is not a strategy."

    I think you're absolutely right to be concerned about that. It seems to me very very likely to happen, so we have to fight against it with every tool at our disposal. Ironically it appear AI itself will be necessary to enlist against those who would use it to produce the result you and I both don't want to see.

    • New
    Quote from Eikadistes

    I deleted my LinkedIn account a few weeks ago.

    I want to add into this thread as an aside that I have tremendous respect for the effort that Eikadistes has put into Epicurean philosophy over the years. Not only that, but he's younger than most of the rest of us here and he's having to live through more of the stresses than most of us.

    Not referring to him specifically but in general -- for how many years now have people been patronized with "learn to code" as the answer to economic changes?

    And now where are we? Coders being laid off in every direction, all at the same time that the competition in some parts of the intelligence-driven job market is greater than ever.

    Not just those of us who are older, but to whom and to what can younger people look to to help navigate these issues?

    I think Epicurus had uniquely valuable insight into what really matters and how to attack ultimate issues.

    I can reduce a lot of the frustration I have with Epicurean writing over the last 100 or so years to the observation that it seems people want to encourage everyone to believe that Epicurus advised "checking out" from society.

    I think Epicurean philosophy calls us to "check in" and grapple with problems with everything we've got. Not because we want unlimited wealth or power or fame or momentary physical stimulation, but because this world and this life is all we have, and we have to use it in the best possible way while we can. And that doesn't mean giving in to Platonic idealism or Kantian models based on categorical imperatives or any other kind of ivory-tower logic-based reasoning.

    AI hasn't been the cause of these problems. It's the uses to which AI is being put that are ramping them up. If we allow Platonic idealism and its related culprits to dominate the us of AI (or any other technology) then we're just going to get driven deeper into obscurity. Look what the anti-Epicurean world has done over the last 2000 years with just the more primitive tools of psychological manipulation they had available to them. If they are allowed to dominate AI and use it for the advancement of Idealism then much worse is yet to come, and that can't be allowed to happen unchallenged.

    • New
    Quote from Cassius

    I have tremendous respect for the effort that Eikadistes has put into Epicurean philosophy over the years.

    Ditto! Eikadisteshas definitely earned ΚΥΔΟΣ ! Additionally Cassius has also earned respect for creating this little virtual Garden on the Internet without which I guarantee I would not have stuck with Epicurean philosophy as long as I have.

    That said...

    Cassius , I'm going to take a slight tangent but eventually keep AI in the mix.

    From my reading of your posts in this thread, you are ready to use whatever tools are at your disposal to evangelize the Good News of Epicurus' Philosophy to a world that is in desperate need of it. You see AI as one of those tools, and you refuse to cede the field to those who would use AI to advance idealism, Platonism, et al.

    If you like to use AI to enhance your writing or to provide visuals to your work, so be it. I've shared my personal feelings about AI and its use.

    However, if you want to "strike a blow for Epicurus" or to challenge the prevailing dominance of idealism, Platonism, Skepticism, Stoicism, AI is a very small arrow in your quiver.

    Breaking through to a larger audience is not going to happen by posting better articles on this forum or on Substack, no matter how enhanced by AI they are.

    You have 34 subscribers on Substack. Granted, here on the form, the "Most Active Threads Of The Last Year " had from 10K to 20K views; but that's not near "going viral." Posting better articles on the forum or Substack are not going to strike that decisive blow you want to strike. We all do good work here, outstanding work, but this doesn't put a dent in increasing awareness of Epicurus to the wider world.

    Emily Austin's book - arguably the best, most accessible intro to the philosophy - on Amazon has only 140 reviews and is #79 in Ancient Greek & Roman Philosophy and #135 in Philosophy of Ethics & Morality. Ryan Holiday's most recent Stoic book from 2025, Wisdom Takes Work: Learn. Apply. Repeat. (The Stoic Virtues Series), is #8 in Ancient Greek & Roman Philosophy and has 659 reviews. The 20 of the top 25 books on Amazon in Ancient Greek & Roman Philosophy are ALL Stoic! Not an Epicurean book until #48!!

    For whatever the definition of "winning" is, the Stoics are winning in the wider modern world. Epicureans are a small fish in a VERY large pond, with most people not having any idea we exist... and those who do know, likely having an erroneous view. Ryan Holiday was just on Hasan Minhaj's YouTube show, and Holiday talks BRIEFLY about Epicureans just to say they advocated staying out of politics and "retreating to their Garden."

    Even if you used generative AI to create bots to post a constant stream of content to social media platforms, the algorithm would likely bury them all under all the slop sloshing around and I doubt it would get the engagement we all want it to. Plus, if it's just one-off posts with no comments or reaction, it definitely dies on the vine.

    So, what's my strategy for striking that blow?? I have no magic wand. The podcast is great, and I'm glad its on multiple platforms. But how many views does it get? Having a presence on Substack is fine if people find your articles randomly on a search of the platform or Google.

    To really get the message out, there needs to be a movement, heck - a celebrity endorsement would be nice. There was a flurry of podcast appearances when Dr. Austin's book came out, but it wasn't sustained. There needs to be a constant drumbeat of new books, new interviews, new widely published content, engagement with Stoics on their platforms (That's why i would LOVE to see you go head to head with Pigliucci! but you didn't even have comments enabled on your Substack article/response about his article)

    There's even a little rivalry (friendly?!) among the Epicurean communities and little to no organization or collaboration or coordination or mutual support. The Society of Epicurus goes its way. The Greek Epicurean groups go their ways. This forum is a bastion of fine work and enthusiasm. But The Stoics continue to outpace our school with books, interview appearances, regular Stoic Week events, merchandise that's widely available from notebooks to calendars to shirts to .... you name it.

    Generative AI is a drop in the bucket and is really the least helpful of the tools in the toolbox.

    How does our School make a dent in the popular Zeitgeist? How do we get talked about in the same circles - as a REAL alternative - to the Stoics??

    I think we are ONLY on the very early curve of making a dent in this area but thinking AI is going to get us a statistically significant way down the road is a pipe dream.

    ALL this would take time, energy, money, coordination, etc. I'm not saying this to be pessimistic, I'm not. I'm trying to take this conversation in a constructive direction, and this thread on AI seemed like it was getting bogged down. I may have more to say later, but it's getting late, I have to get up for my regular job tomorrow (well, later "today" now). I agree with you that striking a blow for Epicurus is a truly worthy goal, but there are only so many minutes in the day and so many days in one's life.

    I leave this here as food for thought and responses.

    • New

    Ok there's a lot to address there but here's at least a start:

    All of the facts you've cited about current levels of penetration into the wider culture are very true from my perspective as well.

    But I don't see those facts as the starting point of the analysis.

    You can't even begin to penetrate the culture at all with a position until you have a clearly articulated position.

    In fact, I'd hazard to say that I am happy that cultural recognition of Epicurus is so low given for what passes as the conventional wisdom about Epicurus.

    Nothing exists to fight for in the culture unless and until there is a body of work that effectively translates what the ancient understanding of Epicurus was into modern terms.

    So that's the place we have to start.

    And I do think that good progress is being made, and I'd put Austin's and DeWitt's books into that category. But "books" aren't the goal either, and are becoming less and less relevant.

    What you've described as real people engaging on social media and a regular drumbeat of activity are certainly the goal. But that can't come until we have more people confidently advocating what needs to be advocated.

    And that's where AI as a tool become useful. A lot of good work has been produced here and other places, but it needs to be organized and presented persuasively. For example with the podcast in particular I think there has been a lot of useful formulations which most people even here on the forum are not aware of. AI will be useful, as it has been with the transcripts, in getting that material easier to access.

    Another example are the "charts" or "side by side" versions of Lucretius and DL 10 and the collections of quotations. Those are all prepared using AI coding and would simply not have been reasonably possible without it.

    In terms of social media posting most any of them that get any traction need some kind of graphic. AI makes possible creative and persuasive charts and graphics that would also otherwise be functionally impossible to most of us.

    That's the first line of activity I am talking about. We need lots "summary" material that brings argument together in the way Epicurus talked about in Herodotus to enable people to go back and forth between the outline and the details. AI can help a LOT with that.

    But no amount of slickness of presentation is going to be of any help if we have no more than a handful of people who can talk about Epicurus without corrupting him with skepticism, with idealism, with "retreatism," with falling into talking about "tranquility" as the real goal of life, with inability to talk about pleasure as the goal of life without apologizing for active pleasures, and characterizing basic aspects of the Epicurean approach to prudence and practical wisdom as obsolete.

    Until we've got a core group of activists who are solid on those issues its probably better that our social penetration remains exactly where it is now! :)

    Most of what I've written in this post is directed toward using AI to make more effective presentations. But there's another level too. It isn't a possible or satisfactory goal to "produce an AI version of Epicurus,' because a model is not a living thing and cannot possibly take into account all actual real-world circumstances. But the process of creating an "algorithm" that an "AI version of Epicurus" would follow is almost exactly the same kind of training material that educating real human Epicureans requires.

    So that's a second aspect of what we're talking about.

    I'll close with saying that I don't think you're being pessimistic. You're one of the people who we really owe a lot to for the work you've put into Epicurus already. It's not being pessimistic to point out what a big job we face because that's the reality. It's food for motivation, not pessimism, just like Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and many others let the size of the job stop them from what they accomplished.

    But none of that would have been possible had the earliest Epicureans not articulated the standard. The first step in going forward is to recover that.

    • New

    Cassius  Don and all: The irony of choosing the best way to live an Epicurean life is that he taught that social activism was less valuable or necessary to happiness than living his basic principles. Yet, he and his disciples tried to spread his influence via the Garden(s) and writing "books" and letters. Their efforts were essentially dependent on some form of marketing and promotion, don't be fooled about that. Spreading the word takes work, no matter the era.

    I hope I have made my feelings clear about better ways to spread Epicurean philosophical concepts, as well as my upbeat belief in the slow but obvious progress of Western culture toward Epicurean/secular directions.

    Anyone can keep track of how often Epicurus is mentioned on the Internet by signing up for Google Alerts by your email address (on any topic you wish) <http://www.google.com/alerts>. I have listed "Epicurus" on my alerts list and get frequent emailed links to articles in the popular press about Epicurus. True, as Don pointed out , the other schools of philosophy and religion probably get tons more press, but progress is progress, however small.

    Even if popular press articles may miss important aspects, and I am not saying they always do miss something or other, I'm still encouraged by the mere mention of the philosophy in a positive light.

    Each of us must choose his way of making known his choice of lifestyle. But we must keep in mind when choosing how to do so in a public way, to not give up the "good" in search of the "perfect."

    Dave Tamanini

    Harrisburg, PA, USA

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

Here is a list of suggested search strategies:

  • Website Overview page - clickable links arrranged by cards.
  • Forum Main Page - list of forums and subforums arranged by topic. Threads are posted according to relevant topics. The "Uncategorized subforum" contains threads which do not fall into any existing topic (also contains older "unfiled" threads which will soon be moved).
  • Search Tool - icon is located on the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere."
  • Search By Key Tags - curated to show frequently-searched topics.
  • Full Tag List - an alphabetical list of all tags.