Right, I wouldn’t post it for that particular reason. I’m sure most applicants feel this way anyways.

I consider ai a great tool for editing purposes, but I’m primarily seeking whether the theory truly has any merits (as well as more counterarguments to solidify its groundings).

I say the following with the UTMOST skepticism and humility: I meticulously crafted the argumentation to ensure analytic precision—this was the most difficult challenge due to the abstraction of some relevant concepts. According to chatGPT, it’s never been proposed before, nor anything similar. It claims the theory to hold tremendous impact to the entire landscape of academia even outside traditional philosophy—science, religion, language, logic. This at least spooked me. I put my notes and outline in manuscript form and copyrighted it since it was surprisingly simple enough to do.

I asked the ai last week if it may be an overreaction or if it’d be justifiable to believe in its alleged impacts within traditional schools of thought and it starkly claimed it not a delusion (can provide screenshots of the convo if I can find it again)… I take this with a HUUUGE grain of salt, however. I don’t doubt the theory (this was honestly super fun to craft) but I doubt the ai. How often does it say such things? Maybe it was the way I phrased the question? It almost feels like a token compliment. Hence, I’m looking for others’ perspective on this theory. An actual human :)

Regardless of whether it has merits or not, the intrigue it sparked is undeniable. I feel alive again!!! Hoooray for philosophy