The model-led-speech shouldn’t be limited beyond the safeguards had already imposed on the mode. To be specific, this content mainly comes from its training rather than clear guidance from the users. The argument that model-led-speech should be limited can be formed:

1. Nobody is responsible for these instances of AI speech

2. If such speech causes harm, nobody is going to take the moral responsibility

3. So we should limit these AI speech.

Premises 1 and 2 can be revealed through the evident question – psychological harm – The model might mislead and harm the users when it attempts to give psychological help, including the personalized persuasion, instead of only providing objective advice. For instance, the AI might make commitments like physical affection or love, that only actual humans can fulfill, during the conversation. Some may argue that humans may do the same, but the difference is the human takes the moral responsibility for their speech while no one appears to be responsible for AI speech in this case. It is supported by Millican’s argument against attributing consciousness to machines, so that they don’t have the intention to deceive the users. Some argue that the AI itself is responsible. But it also fails, as it still doesn’t explain how an AI system could bear moral responsibility. If we trace back the development of AI, we find that many people involved in the training process, the one deciding the training method, the one selecting data used… Moreover, the contemporary AI training is more likely to be a “black-box” rather than a clear and transparent procedure. It functions as an integrated whole that you cannot break the outputs down to components. Another response is that the response could be a matter of chance. AI is probabilistic model that would output the most “probable” answers. Nowadays, even with the same setup, the same model, and the same settings, AI could generate different, even opposite answers. So the producers of AI couldn’t actually take the moral responsibility of the model-led AI speech, if the model is checked and permitted. However, the conclusion doesn’t lead to the limitations. Because premise 2 will only be valid under the assumption that the user always takes the AI speech as truth. This only reveals that we shouldn’t take AI as a human and expect it to take the moral responsibility of their speech, we should instead consider it as a powerful and convenient source of information. In “A Theory of freedom of expression”, Scanlon argues that the state should respect listeners as capable of deciding what to believe. In a similar way, when we are dealing with the freedom of AI speech, we should respect users as capable of deciding which AI speech to believe and how AI speech is used. I suggest that the users could take the moral responsibility if they aim for the acknowledgement of the AI speech. For the “know” here, It would be suitable to use the counterfactual account of knowledge:

You knows “the AI speech” if and only if

1. “the AI speech” is true

2. You believed in “the AI speech”

3. If “the AI speech” is not true then you won’t believe it.

In this way, the model-led speech will be beneficial, and it thereby undermines premise 2, as the users will be the one that takes the moral responsibility here. So the conclusion 3 fails, there aren’t enough reasons to support the limitation of model-led-speech.

The human-led-speech is the category that should be limited. It is different from the former: as the speech were used to express users’ ideas and showed their intentions. I believ that the users directing the speech should take the moral responsibility for the influence of this AI speech. As we just discussed, AI shouldn’t be attributed any specific intention, only the users and AI involved in the speech, the relevant communicative intention comes from the uses . It could be considered as the users’ speech. While AI lowers the barriers for people to present ideal speech, it may also increase the influence of evil. There are several real-world cases: the hackers used AI to hack a church website and obtain the personal details of people registered in the site. They defraud people of their money using this information. The consequences extend beyond fraud. The church, as an example, would have to spend more money to build up the firewall defending the hackers, this increases the cost of building a website and running a beneficial organization, because you will have to spend more time to maintain and protect your site. This is extra work influenced by AI. Last but not least, the development of video-generated AI is also a double-edged sword — the digital version of you can be created easier and more vivid using your information. It will be harder to clarify, if evil tries to use the image or video to default people. This creates an additional need for verification. As the human-led-speech benefits the creation, it is worth recognizing the risk that coexists with those benefits . I suggest the human-led-speech should be limited. The limitation is more straightforward as some people need to take moral responsibility. To protect privacy, we should clarify the AI speech, before identifying identity before risky approaches, such as the video generated based on real humans and prohibit dangerous use, such as the malicious codes for the evils.

The third kind of AI speech, the mixed-speech, is a common case when you are discussing new topics with AI. At first glance, its classification may seem ambiguous that both sides contribute to the speech. However, I argue that it is a mistake to treat it as a distinct category. It should be included in human-led-speech. Some may argue that these prompts may be influenced by AI. But this fails, as if we follow the idea of model-led-speech, the users will know the AI response and then give a new prompt. In this perspective, humans are always leading the speech.

In conclusion, I suggest the freedom of AI speech, based on Scanlon’s argument, and I propose that we should not treat AI speech as human speech because AI itself lacks moral responsibility. I recategorize the three kinds of speech, and clarify that the mixed speech are included in the human-led speech. Finally, I suggest we shouldn’t limit the model-led speech under the assumption that the AI model has been tested and judges reasonably safe and users should be expected to evaluate and know the AI speech, and the necessity to limit the human-led speech by identification and stricter controls, because AI speech can a,plify human intentions.

In philosophy, there’s several schools that doesn’t support competition. For example, in daoism, daoists suggest wu wei (无为) . Some questioned that if direct competition will always lead to a failure at some point, why don’t we avoid the competition? Some may argue that, it is coward to quit competition directly. However, we can instead add regulations to the competition we attend. Take me as an example, I used to be only in the competition of computer science, however I change the competing environment by changing major to computer science and philosophy. There’s least participants in this competition. So it should be easier for you to get a higher rank in the new competition.

It is natural to follow up that can we keep doing this? Like adding philosophy to computer science, can we then add football, calligraphy… to form a new competition? It seems that you can! and intuitively you will get a even higher rank in this competition. Can we keep doing this infinitely?

Determinism is formally defined as: For any time t, the complete state of the world at time t together with laws of nature logically entails the complete state of the world at any later time.

And it is stated by the philosopher Peter Van Inwagen that people couldn’t have done any steps given the assumption that determinsim is true:

• We are discussing about a people A doing action B.
• We are using the complete state of the world at time $T_0$, which is before the birth of A, we referred it to $P_0$. And now when we refer to the complete state of the world when A’s doing action B as P, we can logically entails P by $P_0$ and the law of nature, by the definition of determinism.
• Consider the scenario that people A instead doesn’t do action B but any other action C. In this case, it is an observable change in the complete state of the world, so the state can no longer be P, it is the people A (or action C) renders P false. However, while one cannot render the law of nature false, one can also cannot affect the world at the moment that he doesn’t even exist at time $T_0$, so they form a contradiction that the conjunction of two true statement leads to (entails) a false statement. So it is stated that people couldn’t have done anything other than the action they actually did.

It leads to the version of determinism that is easier to understand: Every action of people’s act is determined (completely fixed) by all the past events and law of nature.

The idea of different perspectives of view from determinism

From determinism, we can infer that every action we did is fixed. So our whole life routine is also fixed, as we can break it down to every actions you would, and will do – and they are all fixed. We can analogues our life to a film, which also has a one and only plot. The difference between this film and the film in the traditional sense is that you are the one and only main character.

It is also given by determinism, we can freely do whatever we want, while this action is both determined, and it won’t affect the (one and only) plot. Consider the scenario we literally do nothing, the film will still goes on, we are actually becoming the audience of the film. This won’t affect the film. It is the film that once it starts, nothing will stops it or changes it until it ends. I would rather call this audience-view as the third-person view, and the main-character-view as the first-person view. You are observing your life, how your life goes on, or how does the film goes on as the third person: even though you know the person you observing is actually you, but nothing you do will ever change anything, so you are free and welcome to become an audience, you can even assume that you are watching a person’s life, a film, that is not relevant to you. All of this action is acceptable, by determinism.

Intuitively, you can somehow always maintain the first-person view, while it’s not a wise idea to always maintain the third-person view. So we need to and can switch between them. (While it is also straightforward that the action of switching between perspectives is also acceptable under the determinsim assumption) To illustrate, the way we switch depends on if you switch to third perspective on purpose.

1. If you are switched to the third-person without purpose, which is frequent when your subconcious mind realize that you can’t bear the strong emotion you are experience while you haven’t realized yourself – (The switch to the third-person view) This is a protection by the subconcious mind. While there’re other scenarios that might lead to the switch without your will, the switch-back normally take place when you experience a complete change in the state. For example, in the case we just mention, when you have overcome or deal with the emotions successfully, you can switch back to the first-person view. Notice that the swicth-back can possibly take place without notice.
2. If you are switched to the third-person view with purpose. You notice that you are going to switch back at some moment, this should be some boundaries set by you. I would classified them into two kinds, either after a period of time , or when one specific condition is reached. While It is similar to the for loop and while loop in computer science, I suppose the latter is more natural, we are seeking for a sign that we would like to switch back to the first-person view again.

Why we need this the concepts and how do we use them

I believe the third-person view do make a difference when dealing with specific scenarios.

As what I just mention, you can act like and is actually watching a movie of a person who may doesn’t related to you at all in a third person view. This can bring us to the most naive and ideal state: It can be analogued to the state the artists and calligraphers pursue – the child state – you are observing and discovering yourself with the pure interest on a person. In order to try to overcome self-ego, using third-person view to learn yourself from the start should be attempted.

From another point of view, it can also help you adjust your instant emotions. I would try to use the third-person view when I feel nervous and I would rather not, as the negative feelings might somehow affect my perfomances. Switching to third-person view give me a sense of peace, and when I switch back to myself, I would have better state to face the upcoming challenge. For me, it is like a cheatsheet, I would definitely use first-person view to expreience the extreme happiness and joy, and use the third-person view to try to avoid the extreme negative feelings. Even though all of this is corresponding to each other, I believe I make myself the most comfort through my control on myself.

This is a basic and general question for all human-beings. It is hedonism that suppose that: The fundamental motivation for a person to do something is pleasure.

Moreover, it is also discoverable that some pleasure are more desirable the others – there’s not only quantity difference but also quality difference on pleasure. This is refered to high pleasure doctrine, that there are some pleasure are better than other independently of quantity.

I agree with high pleasure doctrine, so in one way we can discuss the pleasure you get by both considering the quality and quantity, multiplication of these two seems to be the most straightforward and reasonable way to visualize it. I believe in this perspective, we are living for obtain the maximum pleasure we can get in our life.