# Assume a persona and/or anticipate counterarguments


prompt used: "two people facing one another, one real, one a hologram"
## description

Students could use an AI tool like chatGPT to assume a persona and/or to anticipate counterarguments. Students could select historical figures they're studying in the course and prompt the AI to imagine the substance of a conversation between these two figures, including their points of agreement and the divergences in their thought. Students could also use the AI to anticipate counterarguments to a position they're developing for the purposes of, say, a research essay.

## activity

1. Log into chatGPT using the Harvard AI Sandbox
2. From search bar at the bottom of the page, specify whichever AI tool you'd like to use. Because this is an imaginative exercise, it could be worth experimenting with a couple of different AI tools (e.g., chatGPT and Claude).
3. First, type your questions and/or your prompt for the AI. Remember:
* If you only hit Enter or Return, this will automatically submit your prompt.
* You can also add three ticks (''') to indicate a paragraph break if you prefer.
4. For this activity, ask chatGPT (or whichever tool you choose) to stage a conversation between two major figures in your field. We'll use the example of the philosophers Kant and Kierkegaard.
* Ask chatGPT to imagine a conversation between these two figures
* Specify that you'd like the figures to take a position on a topic in the field that aligns with their work
* This is an example of where expertise in a given field/area dictates the quality of the eventual AI creation. The more detail you can provide your chosen LLM (for this example, chatGPT 4 32K with a higher temperature, which results in more "creativity" from the bot, but also more hallucinations), the better the result.


5. Ask chatGPT to formulate a counterargument to one of the claims made by one of these figures (i.e., to make Kant refute one of Kierkegaard's claims).


## related use cases
* [Imagine how another person might respond to a given argument](/02i1ym98S4-lnotARBdOcA)

---
## Transcript of activity example:
* USER:
* I want you to role-play a debate between Kant and Kierkegaard. This debate will cover their difference in opinion on morality and ethics. Kant's moral philosophy is deontological, based on duty and obligation. He proposed the Categorical Imperative, a principle that requires individuals to act in a way that their actions could become a universal law. On the other hand, Kierkegaard, often considered a precursor to existentialism, emphasized personal choice, subjectivity, and individual existence. He believed in making ethical decisions based on personal faith and commitment, which often contradicts Kant's universal approach.
* AI:
* Kant: Kierkegaard, my friend, I've been giving some thought to our differing viewpoints on the nature of ethics and morality. You see, my belief is that morality is universal, it's not something that changes from person to person. I've come to describe this as the Categorical Imperative - the idea that we should only act in a manner that we would want to be made into a universal law.
* Kierkegaard: Ah, Kant, it's always a pleasure to engage in these discussions with you. I do see where you're coming from, but my perspective is a little different. I see morality as something deeply personal, subjective even. It's not about universal laws, but about an individual's personal faith and commitment. Each person has their own existence, their own life to navigate, and so they must make their own ethical decisions.
* Kant: I understand your point, Kierkegaard, but I can't help but be concerned. If everyone were to follow their own subjective moral compass, wouldn't that lead to a kind of moral chaos? Wouldn't we end up with conflicting moral actions?
* Kierkegaard: I see your concern, Kant, but I don't believe that's the case. By emphasizing personal faith and commitment, I'm not suggesting a kind of moral free-for-all. Instead, I'm saying that each person must grapple with their own ethical dilemmas, making choices based on their personal faith. These choices may not always align with a universal law, but they are deeply meaningful to the individual making them.
* Kant: I do see where you're coming from, Kierkegaard, but I remain firm in my belief. I think a universal moral law, like the Categorical Imperative, can provide a clear, objective guideline for moral actions. In this way, we can ensure that our actions are beneficial not just to ourselves, but to society as a whole.
* Kierkegaard: I respect your viewpoint, Kant, I truly do. But I still believe that a focus on personal faith and commitment can lead to moral actions that are beneficial to society. When individuals are deeply committed to their personal ethics, they're likely to act in ways that are responsible and considerate of others.
* This conversation could go on, as both philosophers have deep and nuanced views on morality and ethics. However, it's important to remember that this is a simplified representation of their ideas. Both Kant and Kierkegaard's philosophies are much more complex and nuanced than can be fully explored in this brief exchange.
* USER:
* Could you make a counterargument against Kant's Categorical Imperative? For this, you do not need to emody Kierkegaard. Feel free to pull from other sources.
* AI:
* Certainly, there are several critiques that have been leveled against Kant's Categorical Imperative. One common criticism comes from consequentialist thinkers, who argue that Kant's deontological ethics fail to consider the outcomes of actions, focusing only on the nature of the action itself.
* For example, let's consider a situation where lying could save a life. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative, lying is universally wrong, and thus, one should not lie even if it could save a life. Consequentialists would argue that the potential to save a life should be factored into the moral equation, and in such a situation, lying could be ethically justified.
* Another critique comes from those who argue that the Categorical Imperative is too abstract and lacks practical applicability. They claim that it's difficult to determine what could be a universal law, and that different people might interpret the same action in different ways. For instance, one person might believe that stealing to feed one's family could be a universal law in cases of extreme poverty, while another person might disagree.
* Lastly, some critics argue that the Categorical Imperative doesn't account for the complexity and diversity of human experiences and cultures. They suggest that a single universal moral law might not be applicable or fair across all cultural and personal contexts.
* These critiques don't necessarily disprove Kant's Categorical Imperative, but they do highlight some potential limitations and areas of debate within his moral philosophy.