Aylsworth and Castro on ChatGPT

Writing Your Own Papers

Introduction

• Aylsworth and Castro (A&C) address the question: Should students write their own papers?
• A "paper" is defined as an assignment requiring reasoning for or against a non-trivial conclusion (e.g., free will, moral implications of eating meat).
• Focus is on humanities papers but applicable more broadly.

Defining "Write"

• "Write" means the ideas originate from the student, expressed in their own words.
• A "yes" answer to the central question means students should not use ChatGPT or other Large Language Models (LLMs) to write papers.
• "ChatGPT" serves as a general term for any LLM.

A&C's Answer

• A&C's answer to the question of whether students should write their own papers is "yes."
• Their arguments share some similarities with those from their paper on digital minimalism.
• The discussion focuses primarily on Section 2 of the paper, which lays the groundwork for justifying their "yes" answer.

Paper Similarities

• This paper is being discussed to examine the ethical issues of using ChatGPT.
• It serves as a follow-up to the digital minimalism paper.
• The arguments presented in this paper may not align identically with those in the digital minimalism paper.
• Analyzing the nuances between arguments enhances the capacity to understand them thoroughly.

Three Requirements

• A&C address three common arguments against using ChatGPT:
  1. It constitutes cheating.
  2. It diminishes a student's capacity.
  3. Writing is a form of thinking.
• A&C contend that these reasons, while potentially valid, lack sufficient justification for prohibiting ChatGPT use.
• The issue isn't the falsity of the claims, but rather their inadequacy in providing a comprehensive rationale.

Cheating Considerations

• A&C acknowledge that using ChatGPT can be considered cheating.
• They argue that the reasons for writing one's own papers should extend beyond merely avoiding cheating.
• The rationale should explain why it would be problematic even if ChatGPT use were universally permitted.
• Therefore, the justification needs to highlight inherent ethical or intellectual concerns, irrespective of academic regulations

Capacity Argument

• The claim that using ChatGPT leads to a loss of capacity needs further examination

Writing as Thinking

• To argue that writing is thinking is insufficient to discourage the use of ChatGPT.
• A&C introduce philosophical concepts and three requirements to support their argument.

Instrumental vs. Final Value

Identifying Value

• Activity: Identifying the value of something requires exploring its instrumental and final value.
• Process: Consider something valuable and provide a reason for its value.
• Iteration: If A is valuable because of B, then determine why B is valuable, and so on, to identify C.

Chain of Value

• Value Chain: A chain of valuable things emerges, where each link derives its value from the preceding one.

Definitions

• Final Value: Something possesses final value if it consistently serves as the last link in a chain of genuinely valuable things, without looping back to an earlier link.
• Instrumental Value: Something possesses instrumental value if it occasionally serves as a link in a chain of genuinely valuable things but is not always the final link and does not loop back.

Three Requirements

• A&C propose three requirements to justify the value of students writing their own papers:
  1. Identify a final value that justifies students writing papers and not using ChatGPT.
  2. Explain why that value is final.
  3. Explain how that final value implies that students should write their own papers.

Importance of Final Value

• A&C emphasize identifying the final value behind why self-written papers are valuable.

Philosophical Approach

• A&C advocate for final value to ensure a general argument with principles aligning self-written papers with the value of other things.
• They believe a general reason requiring final value is vital in the context of ChatGPT to defend the value of writing and thinking through writing, which necessitates identifying a broader and more fundamental value.