The pursuit of classical studies, particularly the exploration of ancient Greek sources, is an inherently complex and time-consuming endeavor. It demands a multifaceted skillset encompassing proficiency in ancient Greek, a nuanced understanding of the political, historical, and social contexts within which these texts were produced, and a deep appreciation of the personas, characters, and motivations of both the authors and the individuals depicted within the works. The intricate interplay of these elements renders the classical study an endeavor that cannot be replicated by computational machines.
Nonetheless, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies offer the potential to significantly enhance the efficiency and accuracy of classical scholarship. Beyond their utility in translation and interpretation, AI tools can serve as invaluable aids in identifying and analyzing the often elusive ‘needles in the haystack’—the subtle nuances, hidden meanings, and intertextual connections that characterize the rich tapestry of classical literature. By automating routine tasks and providing data-driven insights, AI can free scholars to devote more time to the intellectually demanding aspects of their research, fostering a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the classical world.
Below, you will find a list of resources and experiments that we have found intriguing. Their full potential applications remain to be explored, and their quality varies. Some of these resources, such as the sophistic tool, were developed specifically for our own needs, while others were adopted from colleagues and collaborators.
A Sophist’s Game
According to Michael Frede, philosophy has its roots deep in the sophistic soil.
[The] manner of arguing by question and answer, in which Socrates obviously developed great skill, gives Plato’s dialogues their basic form. This accounts for the fact that the dialogues do not portray what we would think of as real discussions—full exchanges of views. Rather, the dialogues follow the rules of dialectic. There is a questioner and a respondent. The questioner elicits from the respondent a thesis, and the task of the questioner is to compel, by the appropriate use of yes-or-no questions, admissions from the respondent that contradict his original thesis. It is part of the formal role of the respondent in dialectic that he answers just with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. This does not make for much of a discussion in our sense, and it certainly constrains the respondent, a feature unfairly exploited by some sophisms, like the argument which asks, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ [1]
What Frede here calls dialectic is a sort of game. It is the game that all the sophists knew and it is the game that philosophy took over. The sophist with whom you can chat below, knows the rules, but he won’t admit it. Answer his questions and make sure you stay alert.
Humanitext.ai
An additional AI resource that has garnered our interest is Humanitext.ai. This AI tool, developed by Naoya Iwata, Ikko Tanaka, and Jun Ogawa, specializes in Western classics with a particular emphasis on ancient Greek philosophy. The primary objective of Humanitext.ai is to leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to enhance the comprehension and interpretation of ancient texts. By utilizing advanced AI technologies, this tool aims to provide deeper insights into classical sources, thereby facilitating a more nuanced understanding of ancient philosophical works. Below you can try it out.
Notes
[1] Frede, Micheal, 1992, xvi, Introduction, in Stanley Lombardo and Karen Bell’s translation of Plato’s Protagoras, Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.). For discussion, see also Frede’s paper “Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form”, from 1992, in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy:201-219.