Attention (to Virtuosity) Is All You Need: Religious Studies Pedagogy and Generative AI

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research on AI is interesting. Researchers look at the use of AI from a different perspective. This is also the first time I have seen an interesting manuscript writing structure. Readers are required to follow the manuscript flow, such as reading interesting novels and essays. The references written are also very decent and good.

Plagiarims Check 12%.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

This research on AI is interesting. Researchers look at the use of AI from a different perspective. This is also the first time I have seen an interesting manuscript writing structure. Readers are required to follow the manuscript flow, such as reading interesting novels and essays. The references written are also very decent and good.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind words about the article structure, content, and references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is theoretical in nature. It fits into the trend of ontological and philosophical questions about generative artificial intelligence in teaching and shaping students. It contains two perspectives: human and technological, which determine different research methods. After reading the article, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, intellectual dissatisfaction, on the other, interesting questions included in the summary that inspire further research.

„1. Which materials will be included within a frontier model’s training corpus? 2. Will we be transparent about the model’s exposure to various sources during training? 3. What social role is appropriate for the well-capitalized AI companies that currently outpace academia’s ability to build and study frontier models of GPT-4’s scale?

4. How will we assess the hard-coded safety protocols that impose socially acceptable biases on frontier models and limit the freedom of users to discover a model’s inherent biases? After all, if we criticize attempts to reduce human reason to explicit rules, why would we find it plausible that ethical reasoning in AI should be rule-based?

5. How will we develop salutary patterns of interaction with chat-based models and make use of their output to further human inquiry?”

Author Response

Comments 1: After reading the article, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, intellectual dissatisfaction, on the other, interesting questions included in the summary that inspire further research.

Response 1: Thank you for engaging the article and for noting that our analysis raises a series of stimulating questions for further research. We are excited to pursue these questions further in future papers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article takes a closer look at the essence of AI and human experts to a plausible settlement in which the human expert and the generative AI system collaborate  pedagogically to shape the religious studies student by asking a series of suggestive “what, if”questions.  The strength of the article is its timeliness and the relevance of the questions it raises as well as its philosophical nature. Looking at AI from the perspective of cognitive paradigms undoubtedly expands contemporary knowledge, which is still too meager. The concept of the article is interesting, the arguments and examples are clear and adequate to the intended purpose. Although the article is theoretical in nature it is based on a desk study, which means that the author “forgot” to describe the methods. It is worth introducing it at least in one sentence.

After reading the article, I think it would be interesting to see empirical research on how religious studies teachers and students understand what AI is, how it works, and what their attitudes are towards the tools they already use such as ChatGPT.

Author Response

Comments 1: Although the article is theoretical in nature it is based on a desk study, which means that the author “forgot” to describe the methods. It is worth introducing it at least in one sentence. 

Response 1: After considering the proper placement of a methods section, we concluded that this might not fit the flow of the article organically; the current method is implicit, essentially using the framing device of Socrates's interrogation of the sophist Protagoras to frame our investigation of generative AI. We have added a section on pedagogy that will hopefully make the philosophical argument more explicit.

Comments 2: After reading the article, I think it would be interesting to see empirical research on how religious studies teachers and students understand what AI is, how it works, and what their attitudes are towards the tools they already use such as ChatGPT.

Response 2: This is a great suggestion and will inform our discussions on a future direction for empirical work in support of our foundational philosophical investigation. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Attention (to Virtuosity) is all You Need: Religious Studies Pedagogy and Generative AI" for review. I have conducted a thorough analysis of your work and offer the following comprehensive feedback to help enhance the impact and clarity of your article.

 

Strengths:

1. Relevance and Timeliness: Your exploration of generative AI's impact on religious studies pedagogy addresses a critical intersection of technology and humanities education, demonstrating keen insight into emerging trends.

2. Interdisciplinary Approach: The paper effectively bridges religious studies, philosophy of science, ethics, and computer science, providing a rich contextual framework that enhances the depth of your analysis.

3. Philosophical Depth: Your integration of virtue ethics and philosophy of science concepts to frame AI in education is commendable. The analysis of human reasoning and potential AI "virtuosity" offers a novel perspective on this topic.

4. Structure: The article's overall organization progresses coherently from historical context to current AI capabilities and pedagogical implications, facilitating reader engagement and understanding.

5. Engagement with Literature: You demonstrate broad engagement with relevant literature across multiple fields, which strengthens your arguments and situates your work within the broader scholarly discourse.

 

Areas for Improvement and Recommendations:

1. Focus and Concision:

Recommendation: Consider refining the historical and philosophical background sections to more directly support your main thesis about AI in religious studies pedagogy. This could help sharpen the focus on your core arguments.

 

2. AI Capabilities and Future Projections:

Recommendation: Provide more concrete evidence for AI capability claims. Clearly distinguish between current capabilities, near-term possibilities, and long-term speculations. Include more caveats and acknowledge uncertainties in AI development to enhance the robustness of your analysis.

 

3. Practical Pedagogical Implications:

Recommendation: Expand on the practical implications for religious studies pedagogy. Include a dedicated section on practical applications with specific scenarios or case studies demonstrating implementation in religious studies classrooms. Address potential challenges and solutions to increase the practical value of your work.

 

4. Ethical Considerations:

Recommendation: Deepen the exploration of ethical implications of integrating AI into religious studies education. Address issues such as AI bias, data privacy, impact on critical thinking skills, and potential for AI to influence religious interpretation. This will enhance the comprehensive nature of your analysis.

 

5. Methodological Clarity:

Recommendation: Include a clear methodology section outlining your approach to analyzing the intersection of AI and religious studies pedagogy. This will strengthen the rigor and reproducibility of your research.

 

6. Balancing Perspectives:

Recommendation: Incorporate a more balanced critical perspective on AI in education. Include a section addressing potential drawbacks or risks of integrating AI into religious studies education to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

 

7. Technical Precision:

Recommendation: Consider consulting with an AI specialist to ensure all technical descriptions are up-to-date and accurate, particularly in the "Five Horizons of Generative AI" section.

 

8. Conclusion and Future Directions:

Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to more fully synthesize your main arguments and their implications. Include suggestions for future research directions to situate your work within ongoing scholarly conversations.

 

9. Currency of Literature Review:

Recommendation: Incorporate insights from recent publications, particularly those from the last year. Specifically, engage with "The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of the Psychology of Religion" (Religions 2024, 15(3), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030290) and other recent works. Consider how these recent publications might inform, support, or challenge your arguments.

 

Specific Comments:

1. Abstract (lines 4-16): Refine to more clearly articulate the main argument and contribution of the paper.

2. Introduction (lines 26-60): Strengthen the context for the "what if" questions to better frame their importance to your argument.

3. Section 2 (lines 61-131): Consider focusing more directly on aspects of human reasoning most relevant to your later arguments about AI.

4. "Five Horizons of Generative AI" (lines 141-190): Clarify how these horizons specifically relate to religious studies pedagogy.

5. "Hallucinations and Virtuosity" (lines 226-315): Strengthen supporting evidence for claims in this section or provide more nuanced discussion.

6. References: Ensure all references are complete and formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Update with recent, relevant publications.

 

Overall Assessment:

Your manuscript presents a novel and important perspective on the intersection of AI and religious studies pedagogy. The core ideas are strong and have the potential to make a significant contribution to this emerging field. With refinements addressing the points above, particularly in enhancing practical implications, balancing perspectives, and incorporating recent research developments, your article can substantially influence the discourse on AI in religious studies pedagogy.

I encourage you to revise the manuscript addressing these points. Your work has the potential to shape future directions in this important area of study, and I look forward to seeing how you develop these ideas further.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a proficient level of academic English, but several areas warrant attention to elevate the overall linguistic quality and precision:

 

1. Sentence Structure:

   - Some sentences, particularly in sections 2 and 4, are excessively complex. Consider breaking these into shorter, more focused statements to enhance clarity.

   - Examples: Lines 73-78 and 226-231 could benefit from restructuring.

2. Technical Terminology:

   - While generally well-employed, some AI-related terms lack consistency. Ensure uniform usage of key concepts like "generative AI" and "virtuosity" throughout.

   - Recommendation: Create a glossary or provide clear definitions upon first use.

3. Paragraph Cohesion:

   - Transitions between paragraphs, especially in the "Five Horizons of Generative AI" section (lines 141-190), could be strengthened to improve logical flow.

   - Suggestion: Use more explicit linking phrases to connect ideas across paragraphs.

4. Verb Tense Consistency:

   - Occasional shifts in verb tense, particularly when discussing AI capabilities, create minor confusion.

   - Example: Line 168-172 switches between present and future tenses inconsistently.

5. Pronoun Usage:

   - Some instances of ambiguous pronoun references, particularly "it" and "this," could be clarified.

   - Specific attention needed in the "Hallucinations and Virtuosity" section (lines 226-315).

 

6. Academic Tone:

   - While generally appropriate, a few phrases (e.g., line 205: "hobgoblins within the press coverage") lean towards colloquialism and could be rephrased more formally.

 

7. Punctuation:

   - Inconsistent use of semicolons and em dashes. Standardize usage according to academic writing conventions.

   - Review comma placement, particularly in complex sentences (e.g., lines 92-97).

 

8. Abstract and Conclusion:

   - These crucial sections would benefit from more precise language to articulate the paper's main arguments and contributions succinctly.

   - The abstract, in particular, could be more tightly focused on the core thesis.

 

9. Passive Voice:

   - While appropriate in academic writing, some sections overuse passive constructions, potentially obscuring agency.

   - Consider balancing with active voice where appropriate, especially when discussing methodological choices.

 

10. Acronym Usage:

    - Ensure all acronyms are defined upon first use and used consistently thereafter.

    - Example: "AI" is sometimes spelled out, sometimes not. Standardize this throughout.

 

While these issues do not substantially impede comprehension, addressing them would significantly enhance the manuscript's clarity, precision, and overall scholarly presentation. A thorough editing pass, potentially with the assistance of a professional academic editor, is recommended to refine these aspects and ensure the language quality matches the intellectual rigor of the content.

Author Response

Comment: Expand on the practical implications for religious studies pedagogy...

Response: We appreciated your substantive comments and considered many of the suggested changes. In particular, your focus on the need to consider more fully the pedagogical aspects of incorporating AI resulting in our adding a new section entitled “Interpretive (and Epistemic) Authority: The Pedagogic Crux” to fill out and make connections between various aspects of the philosophical argument. We have also attended to your stylistic and formatting comments that resulted in many smaller adjustments.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, 

Here are my complete comments and suggestions for the authors, including strengths, weaknesses, and additional recommendations:

 

Strengths:

1. Interdisciplinary approach: The paper effectively bridges multiple disciplines, including philosophy, religious studies, and artificial intelligence. For example, the discussion of Aristotelian virtues in relation to modern AI capabilities is particularly insightful.

 

2. Novel perspective: The framing of AI capabilities through the lens of "virtuosity" offers a fresh and thought-provoking approach to understanding AI's potential role in education. This is exemplified in the section discussing "hallucinations" as a form of artificial imagination.

 

3. Strong theoretical grounding: The paper demonstrates a deep understanding of both classical philosophy and contemporary AI research. The discussion of Aquinas's concept of truth (adaequatio rei et intellectus) and its application to AI is particularly well-executed.

 

4. Timely and relevant: The paper addresses a highly topical issue - the integration of AI in higher education - with specific focus on religious studies, making it relevant to current academic discussions.

 

Weaknesses:

1. Clarity and structure:

   - The paper's organization could be improved to enhance readability and flow of arguments.

   - Example: The transition between discussing human reasoning and AI capabilities (around line 227) is abrupt. The section on "Hallucinations and Virtuosity" introduces new concepts without sufficient context, which may confuse readers.

   - Suggestion: Consider adding clearer section headers and transition sentences to guide the reader through the argument's progression.

 

2. Empirical support:

   - While the theoretical arguments are strong, the paper lacks concrete examples or empirical evidence to support its claims.

   - Example: The discussion of AI's potential role in religious studies pedagogy (lines 362-367) is largely speculative. There are no references to existing studies or pilot programs using AI in religious studies classrooms.

   - Suggestion: Include case studies or preliminary research on AI use in higher education, even if from other disciplines, to strengthen the argument for its potential in religious studies.

 

3. Accessibility:

   - The paper assumes a high level of background knowledge in both philosophy and AI, which may limit its accessibility to a broader academic audience.

   - Example: The discussion of "self-supervision" in AI (lines 277-282) uses technical language that may be challenging for readers without a background in computer science.

   - Similarly, the references to Aristotelian virtues and Aquinas's concept of truth (lines 268-276) may be difficult for readers without a strong background in philosophy.

   - Suggestion: Provide more context or explanations for complex concepts from both fields. Consider adding a glossary for technical terms.

 

4. Balanced critique:

   - The paper could benefit from a more thorough discussion of potential drawbacks or challenges in implementing AI in religious studies pedagogy.

   - Example: While the paper mentions "hallucinations" as a potential issue (lines 228-234), it quickly reframes this as a positive feature. There's limited discussion of other potential problems such as bias in AI training data, privacy concerns, or the potential for AI to reinforce rather than challenge existing interpretations in religious studies.

   - Suggestion: Include a dedicated section on potential challenges and ethical considerations of integrating AI into religious studies education.

 

5. Methodological clarity:

   - The paper's methodology is not explicitly stated, making it difficult to evaluate the robustness of the arguments.

   - Example: The "what if" questions (lines 4-15) provide a framework for the discussion, but it's not clear how these questions are systematically addressed throughout the paper.

   - Suggestion: Include a methodology section explaining how the authors approach these questions and what criteria they use to evaluate their hypotheses.

 

6. Limited scope of AI discussion:

   - The paper focuses primarily on language models like GPT, but doesn't sufficiently address other forms of AI that could be relevant to religious studies.

   - Example: There's no discussion of how AI might be used for analyzing religious texts, studying religious artifacts, or modeling historical religious practices.

   - Suggestion: Broaden the discussion to include a wider range of AI applications relevant to religious studies.

 

7. Lack of practical implementation guidelines:

   - While the paper argues for the integration of AI in religious studies pedagogy, it doesn't provide concrete guidelines for how this might be achieved.

   - Example: The conclusion suggests a collaboration between human instructors and AI (lines 362-367), but doesn't offer specific strategies for implementing this in a classroom setting.

   - Suggestion: Include a section on practical considerations for integrating AI into religious studies curricula.

 

Additional recommendation:

I strongly recommend that you review and engage with the recent article by Alkhouri, K.I. titled "The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of the Psychology of Religion" (Religions 2024, 15, 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030290). This paper addresses similar themes to your work, specifically focusing on the intersection of AI and religious studies. 

 

Overall, this is a thought-provoking and timely paper that makes a valuable contribution to the field. Addressing these points could further enhance its impact and accessibility. The novel framing of AI through the lens of virtuosity offers a unique perspective that could significantly contribute to ongoing discussions about AI in education. With some refinement in structure, additional empirical support, and engagement with the most recent literature, this paper has the potential to be a significant contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Greetings,

I extend my gratitude for your enlightening article. I wish to proffer my reflections on your work.

This manuscript presents a pioneering inquiry into the intricate interplay between generative AI and the pedagogy of religious studies. The authors' interdisciplinary methodology and visionary outlook constitute a substantial contribution to both domains.

The profundity of the theoretical discourse, particularly the examination of AI's capacity for intellectual virtuosity, is highly laudable. The paper adeptly challenges entrenched paradigms, thereby unveiling novel pathways for scholarly exploration in the realms of AI and education.

Moreover, the authors' incorporation of philosophical luminaries, such as Aristotle and Polanyi, significantly enriches the intellectual scaffolding of the paper, rendering it an invaluable asset for academics across diverse fields.

In summation, I wholeheartedly advocate for the publication of this manuscript, as it articulates innovative concepts poised to stimulate further inquiry and dialogue.

Warm regards!