Here is a test (for philosophy students) of how philosophical writing can be improved through the use of Large Language Models:
The Test
1. Please write a brief introduction to a paper topic of your choice (ideally one that you had to write already).
2. Please feed the text into an LLM of your choice. Then, give a detailed account of how the artificially produced text improves or decreases the quality of your own writing. Pay special attention to:
– structure
– adequacy of terminology
– quality of the argument
– (critical) relation to the primary and secondary literature
– adequacy of the proposed methods
– style
– accuracy
– originality the proposed conclusion
Please note: You fail, if you can’t provide an adequate assessment of these points.
Please also note: If you your assessment speaks in favour of the LLM, please think about the promise of your philosophical writing.
Handling Ideas 
Two short questions. First, is it intentional that the text should be submitted without a prompt? Or should a prompt be defined somewhere? Presently, “feed the text into an LLM” does not say if the text should be continued, revised, or if the introduction should be generated independently. This could lead to very different results. Second, I assume “premise” was meant instead of “promise” in the last sentence. Did I understand this correctly? If so, does this mean I should reconsider what philosophical writing actually presupposes — for example, in terms of authorship or originality?
LikeLike
Thanks! Ad 1: Good point. My own experience is that LLMs “suggest” editing when I just feed them a text. But you’re right that the prompt might matter greatly. So, “improve” and detailng the nature of the text would probably be a fitting one.
Ad 2: No, “promise” is the word I meant to use.
LikeLike
Got it, thanks — just curious whether you meant it in the everyday sense, or with the stronger (speech-act) implication that an LLM can’t really promise anything.”
LikeLiked by 1 person