Generating a living animal? Plato on writing and two kinds of generation

Abstract

Generative AI can generate texts, images, and other kinds of content efficiently. When you ask any question, it can generate various answers, just like a living thing. In a sense, it sounds like Plato’s ideal writing. In the Phaedrus, Plato criticises writing and compares it to an offspring that “always needs its father’s help” (275d4-e5). Writing presents information as if it were considering something with intelligence. However, it lacks genuine life. One sign of writing’s lifelessness is its inability to respond to questions. In contrast, Plato’s ideal form of writing is like generating a living creature (ζῷον, 264c3). Not every generation gives birth to fertile children. Plato discriminates between two kinds of generation and connects the metaphor to the issue of discerning truth from falsehood in the Theaetetus. In this paper, I will explore this connection. I will argue that Plato does not mind the source of information. Still, he is really concerned with the process of examining truth in any given data. To examine what is generated, we need a partner to discuss together, exchange questions and answers, and, most importantly, make ourselves engaged. Why do we prefer human partners in conversations? Writing, generative AI, and other information technologies may also play the role of our partner. Nonetheless, if we do not urge ourselves to be engaged in the questioning and answering, we are affected by information passively, and we are vulnerable to being manipulated by human-generated writing or AI-generated content. Plato’s critique of writing is not a rejection of new technology. Rather, the philosopher uses writing, the newly developed information technology of his time, to equip us with the ability to resist information manipulation.