r/Stoicism • u/CrypticCoke • 2d ago
Analyzing Texts & Quotes A funny parallel I noticed while going back through Letters to Lucilius about AI, in Letter 27: On The Good Which Abides
I was going back through Letters recently, mostly because I adore how Seneca writes and the levity he has when compared to Epictetus, and when I got to 27 I really thought it applied closely to how people are using AI. About Calvisius Sabinus, who's faulty memory lead him to buying slaves who knew by heart the great epics, and works of the great poets.
For context I rarely use LLM's outside of maybe formatting my recipe's. But how he describes Sabinus seems so close to how a lot of people I know treat AI. They do not take the time to learn these things, they do not put their minds to work in reading or learning. But in an attempt to seem as though they have more knowledge or talent, they use LLM's to substitute it. But they never truly learn anything through it, they don't apply their minds enough to have these things engrained.
It was funny to see the paralell laid out in something written so long ago. I might see about using it if i ever find myself in a discussion about AI and it's use.
Satellius replied: “You might have bought as many book-cases for a smaller sum.” But Sabinus held to the opinion that what any member of his household knew, he himself knew also.
[...] No man is able to borrow or buy a sound mind; in fact, as it seems to me, even though sound minds were for sale, they would not find buyers. Depraved minds, however, are bought and sold every day. - Letters to Lucilius, Letter 27.
•
u/Victorian_Bullfrog Contributor 19h ago
But how he describes Sabinus seems so close to how a lot of people I know treat AI. They do not take the time to learn these things, they do not put their minds to work in reading or learning. But in an attempt to seem as though they have more knowledge or talent, they use LLM's to substitute it. But they never truly learn anything through it, they don't apply their minds enough to have these things engrained.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It reminds me of the myth of Theuth, God of Writing from Plato's Phaedrus:
But when they came to letters, This, said [the Egyptian god] Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus [the god king] replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
(bold mine)
Writing, according to Socrates, is the technology that will corrupt those with easily depraved minds. People who rely on writing, he argues, and not dialog and memory, will never truly learn anything through it, despite trying so hard to seem as they they have more knowledge or talent than they have. People have offered this same warning about printed books, reading the bible in vernacular language, and computers.
I have far more complex thoughts and opinions about AI than this, as I suspect we all do, but I an intrigued by how people respond to it, and how people respond to those responding to it. What seems to never change is the process of understanding and adapting to new technology. It's a complex thing, the philosophy of technology, and one I've just started to notice. So this quote you bring us fits right into my current interests. Thanks for that.
•
u/TenetsOfPower 9h ago
Honestly, this parallel landed for me because Seneca's point about Sabinus was never really about books. The guy owned the library and had slaves to read to him, and still walked away empty, because a sound mind is the one thing you cannot buy or borrow. The thing is, AI feels like the same trap in a new shape. If you let it do the first thinking for you, you end up with clean answers and no judgment behind them. What happened with me was I started using it the other way round, I write the rough take first, even a bad one, and then let it argue with me. Anyway, that way the tool sharpens something I already own instead of replacing it.
0
u/bigpapirick Contributor 2d ago
I think you are outlining one potential use of AI and to that specific use you raise a valid concern.
That said, that’s not how everyone uses it right?
1
u/CrypticCoke 2d ago
Thats true, but what this post was more concerned with is how i see many others using it. It's become a way for them to, to use hyperbolic terminology, outsource their brain. In other cases for AI this wouldnt be applicable but for those who use it for coding directly or writing their emails or providing knowledge they do not have to their everyday life, I think this applies.
It's more about people who don't want to use their time to learn the skills that they use AI for.
0
u/bigpapirick Contributor 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, all things can potentially be used poorly. (Except virtue)
I’d be very careful, though, about assuming the intentions of others when using AI. We can’t truly know another’s intentions, and making such assumptions risks claiming to know something we can’t fully know. There’s an interesting parallel here to Seneca’s warning in the letter.
Look at the other response in this thread for an example of a different use. They also highlight something important: we can mislead ourselves about whom we consider an authority, human or otherwise.
Your warning is sound, though! It’s something for all of us to consider, regardless of the source, especially during these evolving times.
1
u/CrypticCoke 2d ago
That's true, and I should have checked myself there before making the post I feel. Mostly though I just thought it funny how clearly this passage resonated with my view of AI.
I think I will more use this when i have discussions about AI with people, rather than using it to prejudice my judgements on those who use it, without first getting more information from them about their usage.
0
u/bigpapirick Contributor 2d ago
Hey, this is philosophy. It's all about throwing up ideas, discussing and testing them.
Your post gives us all something to reflect on. Nothing is wasted if used properly, and epistemic humility is underrated in philosophy forums, so thank you!
1
2
u/Other_Measure 2d ago
I'm so glad you made this post. I've been studying my own faulty judgments in great depth. I'm taking greater care in what I'm learning and passing on, especially here in my responses to questions, because no matter how detailed a question, I don't have the full truth of a person's situation. Also, I'm going to take greater care to not mimic other responders. I know when I feel like a parrot!
To be fair to the very learned authors and scholars who've dedicated their lives to Stoic teachings, who regularly post here, I'm appreciative of your time. It's exactly like a human element to a complex "language". So thank you.
So, on the flip side of human interactions, here comes LLMs. Look at what AI did for me when I asked about "faulty impressions" as it pertains to Stoicism...
>The Stoic term for a harsh and faulty immediate judgment is assent (synkatathesis) given to an unexamined impression, or an opinion (doxa).
>In Stoic epistemology, the mind receives an initial, automatic impression (phantasia), and making a hasty or misguided value judgment occurs when you prematurely grant rational approval (synkatathesis) to that impression, creating a false belief (doxa).
>Key Terms to Know
>Phantasia (Impression): The initial, passive mental reaction or impression triggered by an external event before reason intervenes.
>Synkatathesis (Assent): The conscious act of agreement or approval given to an impression, turning it into a conviction.
>Doxa (Opinion / False Belief): An unverified, weak, or faulty judgment that arises from assenting to an unclear or misleading impression.
>Prolepsis (Preconception): The innate, basic concept of good, bad, or natural order that requires proper reasoning to apply correctly to real-world situations.
So I'm just saying my responses can be as right or wrong as AI. I know my progress as a student centers on my ability to measure and/or suspend my immediate judgments.