Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study aims to introduce librarians to ChatGPT and challenge them to think about how it fits into their work and what learning they will need to do in order to stay relevant in the realm of artificial intelligence. Design/methodology/approach Popular and scientific media sources were monitored over the course of two months to gather current discussions about the uses of and opinions about ChatGPT. This was analyzed in light of historical developments in education and libraries. Additional sources of information on the topic were described and discussed so that the issue is made relevant to librarians and libraries. Findings The potential risks and benefits of ChatGPT are highly relevant for librarians but also currently not fully understood. We are in a very early stage of understanding and using this technology but it does appear to have the possibility of becoming disruptive to libraries as well as many other aspects of life. Originality/value ChatGPT-3 has only been publicly available since the end of November 2022. We are just now starting to take a deeper dive into what this technology means for libraries. This paper is one of the early ones that provide librarians with some direction in terms of where to focus their interest and attention in learning about it.

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=1048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper offers a novel interpretation of Hans Jonas' analysis of metabolism, the centrepiece of Jonas' philosophy of organism, in relation to recent controversies regarding the phenomenological dimension of life-mind continuity as understood within 'autopoietic' enactivism (AE). Jonas' philosophy of organism chiefly inspired AE's development of what we might call 'the phenomenological life-mind continuity thesis' (PLMCT), the claim that certain phenomenological features of human experience are central to a proper scientific understanding of both life and mind, and as such central features of all living organisms. After discussing the understanding of PLMCT within AE, and recent criticisms thereof, I develop a reading of Jonas' analysis of metabolism, in light of previous commentators, which emphasizes its systematicity and transcendental flavour. The central thought is that, for Jonas, the attribution of certain phenomenological features is a necessary precondition for our understanding of the possibility of metabolism, rather than being derivable from metabolism itself. I argue that my interpretation strengthens Jonas' contribution to AE's justification for ascribing certain phenomenological features to life across the board. However, it also emphasises the need to complement Jonas' analysis with an explanatory account of organic identity in order to vindicate these phenomenological ascriptions in a scientific context.

0.011988743 = product of:
  0.023977486 = sum of:
    0.023977486 = product of:
      0.047954973 = sum of:
        0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047954973 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.0051380326 = product of:
  0.010276065 = sum of:
    0.010276065 = product of:
      0.02055213 = sum of:
        0.02055213 = weight(_text_:22 in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02055213 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Frontiers in ecology and evolution, 22 October 2021 [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full]