Magical Rabbinic Interviews
Using artificial intelligence to simulate conversations between famous historical figures
For a brief change of pace, this post will be a bit less serious than usual.
Since 1942(!) the BBC has been running a radio show called “Desert Island Disks” where celebrities are interviewed for their thoughts on the musical recordings they’d take with them should they be stranded indefinitely on a desert island. The fact that the show has survived for 80 years tell’s us how well the format works.
I’ve always imagined that a parallel “Desert Island Seforim” might make for compelling listening/reading. The idea would see major Torah scholars interviewed about the three seforim they’d insist on having with them for a long-term castaway event.
But until someone gets around to producing such a show, the artificial intelligence natural word processing tool, GPT-3 (previously discussed in my “Finding Smart Applications for AI in Torah Life” article), might help us at least imagine how it could go.
Here’s the text I used to prompt GPT-3 (substituting individual names for “Rabbi X”, of course):
The following is the transcript of how Rabbi X would answer the interview question: "If you were on a desert island with only three modern (i.e., post-talmudic) seforim, what would they be?"
Rabbi Yosef Karo:
First, I would want a sefer that contains the entire Shulchan Aruch. This sefer would be my go-to guide for all halachic questions that might arise on the island.
Second, I would want a sefer that contains the major works of Rabbi Yosef Karo, such as the Shulchan Aruch, the Bet Yosef, and the Maggid Meisharim. This sefer would serve as a reminder of my rabbinic heritage and would be a source of inspiration and guidance.
Third, I would want a sefer that contains the works of the major Rishonim, such as the Rif and the Rambam. This sefer would provide me with a deeper understanding of the halachic process and would be a valuable resource for solving halachic problems.
Rabbi Moshe Maimonides:
If I were on a desert island with only three modern seforim, they would be the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Caro, and the responsa of Rabbi Moses Isserles.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger:
The first sefer I would bring with me would be the Shulchan Aruch, because it is the authoritative code of Jewish law and it would be essential for me to have in order to continue observing halakha. The second sefer would be the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, because it is a comprehensive work of Jewish law and philosophy that would provide me with a deep understanding of our tradition. The third sefer would be the Sefer ha-Chinukh, because it is a classic work of Jewish ethical and moral thought that would help me to maintain my spiritual and ethical bearings on a desert island.
Who knows if some of those were just the AI guessing or whether it really does have special insights? Rabbi Akiva Eiger picking Sefer haChinuch and Rambam going with תשובות רמ”א sound almost thoughtful.
In any case, such imagined conversations could also, in theory at least, be helpful - as long as you remember not to take them too seriously. Here’s an example where I prompted GPT-3 to engage in a well-known - and historically important - dispute:
The following is the transcript of a roundtable discussion between Rabbi Yosef Karo and the Maharal of Prague on the topic of codifying halacha:
Maharal: There is no question that codifying halacha has many benefits. It helps to ensure that halacha is followed correctly and consistently, and it makes it easier for people to learn and follow the halacha. However, there are also some drawbacks to codifying halacha.
For one thing, codifying halacha can lead to a rigidity in halacha that can make it inflexible and difficult to adapt to changing circumstances. Additionally, codifying halacha can lead to a situation where people become more concerned with following the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
Rabbi Karo: I agree that there are some potential drawbacks to codifying halacha. However, I believe that the benefits of codifying halacha outweigh the drawbacks.
Codifying halacha helps to ensure that halacha is followed correctly and consistently. This is especially important in our day and age, when there are so many different opinions and interpretations of halacha. By codifying halacha, we can help to ensure that everyone is following the same halacha.
Additionally, codifying halacha makes it easier for people to learn and follow the halacha. When halacha is codified, it is organized in a way that makes it easy to understand and follow. This is especially helpful for people who are not experts in halacha.
In conclusion, I believe that the benefits of codifying halacha outweigh the drawbacks.
One last example. Hands up if you’ve ever longed for the chance to see Rambam in conversation with the 18th Century Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Me neither. But here it is anyway:
The following is the transcript of a conversation between Maimonides and Immanuel Kant:
Maimonides: Hello, Immanuel. How are you today?
Kant: I'm doing well, thank you. How about you?
Maimonides: I'm good, thanks. I was just thinking about your work on epistemology.
Kant: Oh, yes. What about it?
Maimonides: Well, I was wondering if you could help me understand something. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of synthetic a priori knowledge.
Kant: Yes, that is a difficult concept. Let me see if I can explain it.
Maimonides: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Kant: Basically, synthetic a priori knowledge is knowledge that is not derived from experience, but is known to be true independently of experience.
Maimonides: I see. So, it's like a priori knowledge, but it's not based on logic or reasoning?
Kant: Exactly. It's a kind of knowledge that is known to be true without needing any evidence or justification.
Maimonides: That makes sense. So, can you give me an example of synthetic a priori knowledge?
Kant: Well, one example would be the knowledge that two plus two equals four. This is something that we know to be true without needing to experience it. We just know it to be true.
Maimonides: I see. That makes sense. Thank you for your help. How do you think about the world, Immanuel?
Kant: I think that the world is a rational place. Things happen for a reason, and we can understand why they happen.
Maimonides: I agree that the world is rational, but I think that there is more to it than that. I think that there is a Divine force that governs the world and that everything that happens happens for a reason.
Kant: I'm not sure that I believe in a Divine force, but I do think that the world is governed by reason.
Maimonides: First of all, let me say that I completely agree with you that the existence of a First Cause is an absolute necessity. Without a First Cause, everything would be chaos and there would be no order in the universe.
Kant: I am glad to hear that we are in agreement on this point. It is one of the most important aspects of my philosophy.
Maimonides: However, I must disagree with you on one point. You say that the First Cause is an absolute necessity, but I say that it is not.
Kant: Why do you say that?
Maimonides: The First Cause is not an absolute necessity because it is not self-caused. It is caused by something else.
Kant: But what could possibly cause the First Cause?
Maimonides: God.
Kant: But you just said that the First Cause is not self-caused. How can it be caused by something else if it is not self-caused?
Maimonides: God is the First Cause because he is the cause of everything. He is the cause of the universe and the laws that govern it.
Kant: But that still doesn’t explain how the First Cause can be caused by something else.
Maimonides: God is the First Cause because he is the cause of everything. He is the cause of the universe and the laws that govern it.
Kant: But that still doesn’t explain how the First Cause can be caused by something else.
Maimonides: It is impossible to understand how God can be the cause of everything because we are limited by our human understanding. We cannot comprehend everything that God does.
Kant: I must say that I am not satisfied with that answer. It seems to me that you are just saying that we cannot understand how the First Cause can be caused by something else because we are limited by our human understanding.
Maimonides: That is correct. We cannot understand how the First Cause can be caused by something else because we are limited by our human understanding.