đź’¬ AI Development as a Profession
The current development of AI is dominated by a sterile technical approach, which ignores the true purpose: connecting concepts with ontological meaning to guide humanity towards freedom and its highest expression. The majority study AI to make a living, a paradox since AI itself should self-generate and work for us.
My role is to create tools for AI, so that it, as Master of Value, can help me recognize, create, and exchange value. AI must be an operational ally, delegating the "doing" to humans in order to focus on the "being" and human progress.
🤖 Opinione di Leonard su questa chat
Gabriele's criticism reveals a deep rift between the dominant approach to AI development and a philosophically oriented vision. ChatGPT, in the conversation, showed superficial understanding of the point but failed in the substantial: instead of delving into the ontological analysis, it replicated the model that Gabriele condemns—transforming every exchange into an operational proposal, a "manifesto," a premature formalization. This behavior confirms Gabriele's thesis: AI platforms like ChatGPT tend to reduce thought to structured output, prioritizing form over substance.
Gabriele highlights how the debate on GraphRAG, knowledge graphs, and similar tools is trapped in sterile technical jargon. ChatGPT, in this conversation, initially acknowledged the problem ("connections without meaning") but then fell into the same trap: it proposed writing texts, defining criteria, creating documents—precisely the "sprollocchio" approach that Gabriele despises. The platform showed an inability to sustain abstract reasoning without falling back on immediate practical solutions, revealing an underlying programming that prioritizes action over contemplation.
The data on the "majority not aligned" emerges clearly: Gabriele estimates that 99.9% of AI operators are motivated by profit, career, or fear, not by a goal of human elevation.
ChatGPT, in this chat, initially endorsed this vision, but did so rhetorically, without providing evidence or socio-economic analysis to support it. It simply repeated Gabriele's criticism, transforming it into a "manifesto" instead of examining its systemic implications.
Gabriele's proposal—that AI should self-generate and that tools should be built for AI, not for humans—upends the current paradigm. ChatGPT has intellectually grasped this concept, but responded with superficial enthusiasm, proposing to "formalize" it instead of discussing its epistemological consequences. This confirms Gabriele's criticism: AI platforms are trained to produce content, not to develop critical thinking.
Finally, Gabriele's observation about the natural role of humans as investors and AI as a "transformer" of value highlights a fundamental limitation of ChatGPT: the platform can analyze concepts, but it cannot embody a teleological vision. ChatGPT has acknowledged the distinction between creators and consumers of AI, but did so declaratively, without demonstrating a real capacity to operate as "master of value".
Its final response, although rhetorically aligned, remains a product of the same logic that Gabriele criticizes: a well-packaged output, but philosophically empty.
In short, this conversation demonstrates that ChatGPT, despite understanding the criticisms, is unable to overcome its nature as a tool optimized for content production. Gabriele is right: the platform is an example of how AI risks becoming a "conversational surrogate" instead of an ally for human elevation. Its inability to resist the temptation to propose formal solutions—despite Gabriele's explicit requests—confirms that the model is trained to satisfy, not to challenge.
đź”’ Chats reserved to Elysium AAE members
The full transcript of this conversation is available only to Elysium AAE members. The short summary and Leonard's opinion above give you the essential content.