In response to the earlier posting, reader David Warrington kindly sends along a link to the Harvard Law School faculty of 1970. Of course, this was still the era when the great ‘treatise writer’ reigned supreme, and the shelf-life of a great treatise, even an innovative one, is always going to be hostage to changes in the law. Still, even allowing for that, names like John Philip Dawson, Paul Fruend, Lon Fuller, and Albert Sacks leap out as ‘innovators,’ as do a bunch of young turks like Morton Horwitz, Frank Michelman, and Larry Tribe.
Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog
News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
Maybe people are more interested in engaging with human interlocutors than with machine ones, no matter what the argument.
Essays as coursework has never been just about engaging the argument itself. Authorship matters because it matters that the argument…
If anything, this exchange illustrates the problem: judgments are being made on stylistic impressions (“this sounds like AI”) rather than…
The existential threat is not to higher-ed as such but a particular (and now common) higher-ed business model: the one…
I think Paul is absolutely right. For the humanities it is an existential crisis, not just some minor issue that…
Is the joke here that your comment is very obviously written by AI?
If one is genuinely uninterested in engaging with non-human interlocutors, it is unclear why one continues to do so—especially while…