The Philosopher & The News – Détails, épisodes et analyse

Chat GPT, an AI powered chat-bot, has become the world’s fastest growing application, with over 100 million users in the first month of its launch. Even its harshest critics concede that when interacting with Chat GPT, it can seem as if one is talking to an intelligent machine. But, the standard critique goes, that’s just an illusion. Chat GPT isn’t in fact intelligent. It doesn’t understand the questions it’s asked, or the answers it gives. 

But, what if this critique is wrong? What if our elevation of human understanding to something that machines like Chat GPT can’t reach is mere narcissism, or worse, a philosophical mistake? What if, what current AI can do isn’t really possible without some robust level of understanding? 

Reuben Cohn- Gordon is an AI researcher at the Iniversity of British Columbia and UC Berkeley, and recently wrote an article entitled GPT’s very Inhuman Mind for Noema magazine, in which he argues against the standard critique of large language models like Chat GPT, namely that they lack any form of intelligence and understanding. Reuben uses a number of ideas from 20th century philosophy in approaching this, as well as intriguing metaphors from Classic Roman literature. 

If you enjoyed the episode, please leave us a rating and a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journalm founded in 1923. Check out the latest issue of The Philosopher and its online events series: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Music by Rowan Mcilvride

On February 1st a national vaccine mandate took effect in Austria. Those over the age of 18 who haven’t been vaccinated could face fines of over €3,000. Several other countries have introduced similar mandates for the elderly, medical staff and care home workers. Those resisting vaccination say it should be their choice whether to get the jab, not the state’s. Others argue that in liberal societies, it’s the state’s a right to limit the freedom of individuals when their behaviour harms others.

So are those resisting vaccination right in saying it’s a matter of their personal freedom? Or does the harm they might be causing others justify state intervention? Would mandating vaccines an act of paternalism by the state? And could ending the pandemic be a good enough reason for overriding other ethical concerns?

Stephen John is the Hatton Trust lecturer in philosophy of public health at the University of Cambridge, and works on the intersection of philosophy of science, applied ethics, and political philosophy. He is author of the book Objectivity in Science, and is a regular contributor  to publications like The Conversation, and the online magazine of The Institute of Art and Ideas. Our conversation is based on an article Stephen wrote for the latter, asking “Are mandatory vaccines justified?”.

Pease leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal. Check out the spring issue of the philosopher, and order a copy: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Music by Rowan Mcilvride

It’s been a year since the end Trump’s presidency, and the beginning of Biden’s. And while Biden pleaded for unity, and the healing of bitter political divisions in his inaugural speech, the country remains as divided as ever. 40% of Americans say in polls that they don’t believe Joe Biden is the legitimate president, and the International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy Report now classifies the United States a “backsliding democracy” sighting “runaway polarization” as one of the key threats. 

So is there still hope for American democracy to recover? How exactly should we understand polarization? Is it possible to overcome it by engaging more with the opposite side? And how might reading old philosophy books, about different political realities help?
 
Robert Talisse is the W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vandrbilt University, and author of a number of books on the nature of democracy, liberalism and the American pragmatist tradition. His most recent book is called Sustaining Democracy: What we Owe to the Other Side, by Oxford University Press.

Talisse is also himself the host of two podcasts: New Books in Philosophy podcast as well as the Why We Argue podcast.

The Institute of Art and Ideas article discussed in the episode can be found here: Democracy and the Polarization Trap.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal.

Music by Pataphysical: https://soundcloud.com/pataphysicaltransmission

Artwork by Nick Halliday: https://www.hallidaybooks.com/design

On November 24th,  27 migrants died trying to cross the Channel to the UK in an inflatable dinghy. This was one of the deadliest incidents of this kind. 

 The UK’s prime minister Boris Johnson blamed France for not taking stricter measures to prevent those who enable such journeys. People trafficking gangs were “literally getting away with murder”, he said. 

 But are the people smugglers really the ones to blame for these deaths? Would tougher sentences on those who offer such services be warranted? Are tougher measures likely to benefit migrants in any way? Or would they end up putting them in situations of even greater danger?

Mollie Gerver is an assistant professor in the Department of Government at the University of Essex. From January 2022 she will be an assistant professor in the Department of Political Economy at King's College London. Her philosophical research focuses on two main topics: consent, and immigration ethics.  

She is the author of the book The Ethics and Practice of Refugee Repatriation and a number of papers on the Ethics of Immigration, one of which we discuss on the podcast: Decriminalizing People Smuggling. 

Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believe that soon enough, we’ll be connecting to each otehr in the metaverse,  a virtual reality in which our avatars will be able to meet in virtual space, have virtual meetings and share virtual experiences. It will seem to us as though we’re really there present  in virtual space, and our experience will feel real, even though they won’t be. 

But should we believe the hype? And even if virtual reality ends up being as exciting as Zuckerberg wants us to think, should we really trust him and his company to curate a whole new internet for us? If Facebook’s products proved to be masterful distraction machines, designed to keep us online and mine our private data, will the metaverse end up being a version of that on steroids? What is the value and significance of virtual experiences, compared to real ones? And what will be the moral status of virtual acts – like murdering someone’s avatar in the metaverse?

Rami Ali is an assistant professor of philosophy at Lebanese American University in Beirut.

And holds a PhD from the University of Miami in Florida.  He works on the phenomenological movement, the philosophy of technology and the philosophy of mind and perception. He is also an avid proponent of virtual reality technology.

Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal. Check out the autumn issue on Thinking Otherwise: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Music by Rowan Mcilvride

Insulate Britain, a new climate change campaign group, has been blocking major motorways around London in recent weeks. Its demands are simple: The UK government should fund the insulation of all social housing by 2025, as well as put forward a "legally-binding national plan" for insulating all homes in Britain by 2030. 

But is this form of civil disobedience an effective way to gain the public’s sympathy and bring about public policy change? Or are the role models of non-violent resistance like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi over-romanticized and impossible to emulate? 

Is more direct and violent action, like the blowing up of gas pipes, a more effective form of activism, one that gets to point? Or is the contempt for liberal democracy and its processes that such acts imply a dangerous authoritarian streak that requires caution. 

And is it possible to respond to the climate emergency we are facing, while upholding our loyalty to our sluggish democratic processes?

William Scheuerman, James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at the University of Indiana, Bloomington and author of many books, including Civil Disobedience.

Bill's  paper "Political Disobedience and the Climate Emergency".


Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal. Check out the autumn season of online philosophy webinars: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Music by Rowan Mcilvride

Just as the new James Bond has hit the screen, the chatter about who is going to replace Daniel Craig has begun. Some are adamant that it should absolutely not be another white, straight, macho man - the times have moved on from all that. But would changing the character into a woman or a person of colour or with a different sexual orientation be doing violence to the very concept of who James Bond is? And why does it matter who James Bond, a fictional character, is portrayed by? Do the norms of the real world always manage to creep in into the world of fantasy? And was Plato right when he worried about the potential corrupting influence of art?

Adriana Clavel-Vázquez British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the Faculty of Philosophy, at the University of Oxford, working on the ethics of imagination. Adriana's article for the Institute of Art and Ideas, It's time to let James Bond Die, can be found here. 

Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal. Check out the autumn season of online philosophy webinars: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Back in May, the UK government introduced a bill that according to its description would aim to strengthen the legal duties on higher education institutions to protect freedom of speech on campuses for students, academics and visiting speakers.

This month, the Higher Education Committee has been hearing oral evidence by academics, activists and students on their views on the bill, before its put before the commons for a vote.  

So is this a bill  trying to solve a real free speech problem on campuses around the country? Or is the government joining the culture wars, exaggerating the degree of cancel culture on campuses, and attempting to help promote the conservative views of its voters, generally unpopular with students and academics?

Are the current legal protections of free speech not enough to ensure that academics and students are able to express themselves freely, and have those who direct threats and abusive messages towards them punished accordingly? 

And is John Stuart Mill’s argument that free speech ensures the dissemination of truth and knowledge still fit for the 21st century?

Arif Ahmed is a reader in philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and a specialist in the philosophy of language, having written books on Wittgenstein and Kripke, among others. Arif is also a passionate defender of free speech, and was one of the academics giving oral evidence to the Higher education committee this month. As you will hear, Arif is broadly in favour of the bill, and despite our disagreement, makes a forceful and passionate case for why he thinks  the protection of free speech by the government has become  necessary. 

This month marks the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the day two planes, hijacked by members of Al Qaeda, flew into the world trade centre in New York City, killing thousands. A third plane hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon that day, the headquarters of the US military, while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania, after its passengers managed to divert it from its original target.  A 20-year war in Afghanistan was supposed to have eradicated Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, but last month, as the United States army was evacuating its personnel and allies from Kabul airport, ISIS K, a different Islamist terrorist  organisation, attacked the airport with suicide bombers, killing at least 60 civilians and 13 US troops.  

Is it the willingness to use violence what defines an extremist? Or is it perhaps their extreme ideas, occupying the far ends of the ideological spectrums of politics and religion? Can the status quo ever be considered extremist? And what do people mean when they say that extremes meet - that extremists of all political orientations and religions have something deep in common?

Quassim Cassam is professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick, and author of the just published book Extremism: A Philosophical Analysis.

Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

This podcast is created in partnership with The Philosopher, the UK’s longest running public philosophy journal. Check out the autumn season of online philosophy webinars: https://www.thephilosopher1923.org

Artwork by Nick Halliday

Music by Rowan Mcilvride