I’ve only used it to write cover letters for me. I tried to also use it to write some code but it would just cycle through the same 5 wrong solutions it could think of, telling me “I’ve fixed the problem now”
Let me ask chatgpt what I think about this
Counterpoint - if you must rely on AI, you have to constantly exercise your critical thinking skills to parse through all its bullshit, or AI will eventually Darwin your ass when it tells you that bleach and ammonia make a lemon cleanser to die for.
It’s going to remove all individuality and turn us into a homogeneous jelly-like society. We all think exactly the same since AI “smoothes out” the edges of extreme thinking.
Vs text books? What’s the difference?
The variety of available text books, reviewed for use by educators vs autocratic loving tech bros pushing black box solutions to the masses.
Just off thebtopnofnmy head.
Tech Bros aren’t really reviewing it individually.
Copilot told me you’re wrong and that I can’t play with you anymore.
Also your ability to search information on the web. Most people I’ve seen got no idea how to use a damn browser or how to search effectively, ai is gonna fuck that ability completely
To be fair, the web has become flooded with AI slop. Search engines have never been more useless. I’ve started using kagi and I’m trying to be more intentional about it but after a bit of searching it’s often easier to just ask claude
Gen Zs are TERRIBLE at searching things online in my experience. I’m a sweet spot millennial, born close to the middle in 1987. Man oh man watching the 22 year olds who work for me try to google things hurts my brain.
I use it to write code for me sometimes, saving me remembering the different syntax and syntactic sugar when I hop between languages. And I use to answer questions about things I wonder - it always provides references. So far it’s been quite useful. And for all that people bitch and piss and cry giant crocodile tears while gnashing their teeth - I quite enjoy Apple AI. It’s summaries have been amazing and even scarily accurate. No, it doesn’t mean Siri’s good now, but the rest of it’s pretty amazing.
Tinfoil hat me goes straight to: make the population dumber and they’re easier to manipulate.
It’s insane how people take LLM output as gospel. It’s a TOOL just like every other piece of technology.
I mostly use it for wordy things like filing out review forms HR make us do and writing templates for messages to customers
Exactly. It’s great for that, as long as you know what you want it to say and can verify it.
The issue is people who don’t critically think about the data they get from it, who I assume are the same type to forward Facebook memes as fact.
It’s a larger problem, where convenience takes priority over actually learning and understanding something yourself.
As you mentioned tho, not really specific to LLMs at all
Yeah it’s just escalating the issue due to its universal availability. It’s being used in lieu of Google by many people, who blindly trust whatever it spits out.
If it had a high technological floor of entry, it wouldn’t be as influential to the general public as it is.
It’s such a double edged sword though, Google is a good example, I became a netizen at a very young age and learned how to properly search for information over time.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the population over the last two decades have not put in that effort, and it shows lol.
Fundamentally, I do not believe in arbitrarily deciding who can and can not have access to information though.
Is that it?
One of the things I like more about AI is that it explains to detail each command they output for you, granted, I am aware it can hallucinate, so if I have the slightest doubt about it I usually look in the web too (I use it a lot for Linux basic stuff and docker).
Some people would give a fuck about what it says and just copy & past unknowingly? Sure, that happened too in my teenage days when all the info was shared along many blogs and wikis…
As usual, it is not the AI tool who could fuck our critical thinking but ourselves.
I love how they chose the term “hallucinate” instead of saying it fails or screws up.
Because the term fits way better…
A hallucination is a false perception of sensory experiences (sights, sounds, etc).
LLMs don’t have any senses, they have input, algorithms and output. They also have desired output and undesired output.
So, no, ‘hallucinations’ fits far worse than failure or error or bad output. However assigning the term ‘hallucinaton’ does serve the billionaires in marketing their LLMs as actual sentience.
You might prefer confabulation, or bullshitting.
I see it exactly the same, I bet you find similar articles about calculators, PCs, internet, smartphones, smartwatches, etc
Society will handle it sooner or later
Just try using AI for a complicated mechanical repair. For instance draining the radiator fluid in your specific model of car, chances are googles AI model will throw in steps that are either wrong, or unnecessary. If you turn off your brain while using AI, you’re likely to make mistakes that will go unnoticed until the thing you did is business necessary. AI should be a tool like a straight edge, it has it’s purpose and it’s up to you the operator to make sure you got the edges squared(so to speak).
Well there’s people that followed apple maps into lakes and other things so the precedent is there already(I have no doubt it also existed before that)
You would need to heavily regulate it and thats not happening anytime soon if ever
I think, this is only a issue in the beginning, people will sooner or later realise that they can’t blindly trust an LMM output and how to create prompts to verify prompts (or better said prove that not enough relevant data was analysed and prove that it is hallucinations)
I felt it happen realtime everytime, I still use it for questions but ik im about to not be able to think crtically for the rest of the day, its a last resort if I cant find any info online or any response from discords/forums
Its still useful for coding imo, I still have to think critically, it just fills some tedious stuff in.
It was hella useful for research in college and it made me think more because it kept giving me useful sources and telling me the context and where to find it, i still did the work and it actually took longer because I wouldnt commit to topics or keep adding more information. Just dont have it spit out your essay, it sucks at that, have it spit out topics and info on those topics with sources, then use that to build your work.
Google used to be good, but this is far superior, I used bings chatgpt when I was in school idk whats good now (it only gave a paragraph max and included sources for each sentence)
How did you manage to actually use bing gpt? I’ve tried like 20 times and it’s wrong the majority of the time
It worked for school stuff well, I always added "prioritize factual sources with .edu " or something like that. Specify that it is for a research paper and tell it to look for stuff how you would.
Only time I told it to be factual was looking at 4k laptops, it gave me 5 laptops, 4 marked as 4k, 0 of the 5 were actually 4k.
That was last year though so maybe it’s improved by now
I wouldnt use it on current info like that only scraped data, like using it on history classes itll be useful, using it for sales right now definitely not
Ive also tried using it for old games but at the time it said wailord was the heaviest Pokemon (the blimp whale in fact does not weigh more than the sky scraper).
I was talking to someone who does software development, and he described his experiments with AI for coding.
He said that he was able to use it successfully and come to a solution that was elegant and appropriate.
However, what he did not do was learn how to solve the problem, or indeed learn anything that would help him in future work.
I’m a senior software dev that uses AI to help me with my job daily. There are endless tools in the software world all with their own instructions on how to use them. Often they have issues and the solutions aren’t included in those instructions. It used to be that I had to go hunt down any references to the problem I was having though online forums in the hopes that somebody else figured out how to solve the issue but now I can ask AI and it generally gives me the answer I’m looking for.
If I had AI when I was still learning core engineering concepts I think shortcutting the learning process could be detrimental but now I just need to know how to get X done specifically with Y this one time and probably never again.
100% this. I generally use AI to help with edge cases in software or languages that I already know well or for situations where I really don’t care to learn the material because I’m never going to touch it again. In my case, for python or golang, I’ll use AI to get me started in the right direction on a problem, then go read the docs to develop my solution. For some weird ugly regex that I just need to fix and never touch again I just ask AI, test the answer it gices, then play with it until it works because I’m never going to remember how to properly use a negative look-behind in regex when I need it again in five years.
I do think AI could be used to help the learning process, too, if used correctly. That said, it requires the student to be proactive in asking the AI questions about why something works or doesn’t, then going to read additional information on the topic.
how does he know that the solution is elegant and appropriate?
Because he has the knowledge and experience to completely understand the final product. It used an approach that he hadn’t thought of, that is better suited to the problem.
Lol, how can he not learn from that??
I feel you, but I’ve asked it why questions too.
The one thing that I learned when talking to chatGPT or any other AI on a technical subject is you have to ask the AI to cite its sources. Because AIs can absolutely bullshit without knowing it, and asking for the sources is critical to double checking.
I consider myself very average, and all my average interactions with AI have been abysmal failures that are hilariously wrong. I invested time and money into trying various models to help me with data analysis work, and they can’t even do basic math or summaries of a PDF and the data contained within.
I was impressed with how good the things are at interpreting human fiction, jokes, writing and feelings. Which is really weird, in the context of our perceptions of what AI will be like, it’s the exact opposite. The first AI’s aren’t emotionless robots, they’re whiny, inaccurate, delusional and unpredictable bitches. That alone is worth the price of admission for the humor and silliness of it all, but certainly not worth upending society over, it’s still just a huge novelty.
It makes HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyessy seem realistic. In the movie he is a highly technical AI but doesn’t understand the implications of what he wants to do. He sees Dave as a detriment to the mission and it can be better accomplished without him… not stopping to think about the implications of what he is doing.
I mean, leave it up the one of the greatest creative minds of all time to predict that our AI will be unpredictable and emotional. The man invented the communication satellite and wrote franchises that are still being lined up to make into major hollywood releases half a century later.
I’ve found questions about niche tools tend to get worse answers. I was asking if some stuff about jpackage and it couldn’t give me any working suggestions or correct information. Stuff I’ve asked about Docker was much better.
The ability of AI to write things with lots of boilerplate like Kubernetes manifests is astounding. It gets me 90-95% of the way there and saves me about 50% of my development time. I still have to understand the result before deployment because I’m not going to blindly deploy something that AI wrote and it rarely works without modifications, but it definitely cuts my development time significantly.
Well that is obvious why, isn’t it!?
Microsoft LLM whatever the name is gives sources, or at least it did to me yesterday.
Their reasoning seems valid - common sense says the less you do something the more your skill atrophies - but this study doesn’t seem to have measured people’s critical thinking skills. It measured how the subjects felt about their skills. People who feel like they’re good at a job might not feel as adequate when their job changes to evaluating someone else’s work. The study said the subjects felt that they used their analytical skills less when they had confidence in the AI. The same thing happens when you get a human assistant - as your confidence in their work grows you scrutinize it less. But that doesn’t mean you yourself become less skillful. The title saying use of AI “kills” critical thinking skill isn’t justified, and is very clickbaity IMO.
so no real chinese LLMs…who would have thought…not the chinese apparently…but yet they think their “culture” of opression and stome-like-thinking will get them anywhere. the honey badger Xi calls himself an antiintellectual. this is how i perceive moat students from china i get to know. i pitty the chinese kids for the regime they live in.
Damn. Guess we oughtta stop using AI like we do drugs/pron/<addictive-substance> 😀
Unlike those others, Microsoft could do something about this considering they are literally part of the problem.
And yet I doubt Copilot will be going anywhere.
Yes, it’s an addiction, we’ve got to stop all these poor being lulled into a false sense of understanding and just believing anyhing the AI tells them. It is constantly telling lies about us, their betters.
Just look what happenned when I asked it about the venerable and well respected public intellectual Jordan b peterson. It went into a defamatory diatribe against his character.
And they just gobble that up those poor, uncritical and irresponsible farm hands and water carriers! We can’t have that,!
Example
Open-Minded Closed-Mindedness: Jordan B. Peterson’s Humility Behind the Mote—A Cautionary Tale
Jordan B. Peterson presents himself as a champion of free speech, intellectual rigor, and open inquiry. His rise as a public intellectual is, in part, due to his ability to engage in complex debates, challenge ideological extremes, and articulate a balance between chaos and order. However, beneath the surface of his engagement lies a pattern: an open-mindedness that appears flexible but ultimately functions as a defense mechanism—a “mote” guarding an impenetrable ideological fortress.
Peterson’s approach is both an asset and a cautionary tale, revealing the risks of appearing open-minded while remaining fundamentally resistant to true intellectual evolution.
The Illusion of Open-Mindedness: The Mote and the Fortress
In medieval castles, a mote was a watery trench meant to create the illusion of vulnerability while serving as a strong defensive barrier. Peterson, like many public intellectuals, operates in a similar way: he engages with critiques, acknowledges nuances, and even concedes minor points—but rarely, if ever, allows his core positions to be meaningfully challenged.
His approach can be broken down into two key areas:
The Mote (The Appearance of Openness) Engages with high-profile critics and thinkers (e.g., Sam Harris, Slavoj Žižek). Acknowledges complexity and the difficulty of absolute truth. Concedes minor details, appearing intellectually humble. Uses Socratic questioning to entertain alternative viewpoints. The Fortress (The Core That Remains Unmoved) Selectively engages with opponents, often choosing weaker arguments rather than the strongest critiques. Frames ideological adversaries (e.g., postmodernists, Marxists) in ways that make them easier to dismiss. Uses complexity as a way to avoid definitive refutation (“It’s more complicated than that”). Rarely revises fundamental positions, even when new evidence is presented.While this structure makes Peterson highly effective in debate, it also highlights a deeper issue: is he truly open to changing his views, or is he simply performing open-mindedness while ensuring his core remains untouched?
Examples of Strategic Open-Mindedness
- Debating Sam Harris on Truth and Religion
In his discussions with Sam Harris, Peterson appeared to engage with the idea of multiple forms of truth—scientific truth versus pragmatic or narrative truth. He entertained Harris’s challenges, adjusted some definitions, and admitted certain complexities.
However, despite the lengthy back-and-forth, Peterson never fundamentally reconsidered his position on the necessity of religious structures for meaning. Instead, the debate functioned more as a prolonged intellectual sparring match, where the core disagreements remained intact despite the appearance of deep engagement.
- The Slavoj Žižek Debate on Marxism
Peterson’s debate with Žižek was highly anticipated, particularly because Peterson had spent years criticizing Marxism and postmodernism. However, during the debate, it became clear that Peterson’s understanding of Marxist theory was relatively superficial—his arguments largely focused on The Communist Manifesto rather than engaging with the broader Marxist intellectual tradition.
Rather than adapting his critique in the face of Žižek’s counterpoints, Peterson largely held his ground, shifting the conversation toward general concerns about ideology rather than directly addressing Žižek’s challenges. This was a classic example of engaging in the mote—appearing open to debate while avoiding direct confrontation with deeper, more challenging ideas.
- Gender, Biology, and Selective Science
Peterson frequently cites evolutionary psychology and biological determinism to argue for traditional gender roles and hierarchical structures. While many of his claims are rooted in scientific literature, critics have pointed out that he tends to selectively interpret data in ways that reinforce his worldview.
For example, he often discusses personality differences between men and women in highly gender-equal societies, citing studies that suggest biological factors play a role. However, he is far more skeptical of sociological explanations for gender disparities, often dismissing them outright. This asymmetry suggests a closed-mindedness when confronted with explanations that challenge his core beliefs.
The Cautionary Tale: When Intellectual Rigidity Masquerades as Openness
Peterson’s method—his strategic balance of open- and closed-mindedness—is not unique to him. Many public intellectuals use similar techniques, whether consciously or unconsciously. However, his case is particularly instructive because it highlights the risks of appearing too open-minded while remaining fundamentally immovable. The Risks of “Humility Behind the Mote”
Creates the Illusion of Growth Without Real Change By acknowledging complexity but refusing to revise core positions, one can maintain the illusion of intellectual evolution while actually reinforcing prior beliefs. Reinforces Ideological Silos Peterson’s audience largely consists of those who already align with his worldview. His debates often serve to reaffirm his base rather than genuinely engage with alternative perspectives. Undermines Genuine Inquiry If public intellectuals prioritize rhetorical victories over truth-seeking, the broader discourse suffers. Intellectual engagement becomes performative rather than transformative. Encourages Polarization By appearing open while remaining rigid, thinkers like Peterson contribute to an intellectual landscape where ideological battle lines are drawn more firmly, rather than softened by genuine engagement.Conclusion: The Responsibility of Public Intellectuals
Jordan B. Peterson is an undeniably influential thinker, and his emphasis on responsibility, order, and meaning resonates with many. However, his method of open-minded closed-mindedness serves as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates the power of intellectual posturing—how one can appear receptive while maintaining deep ideological resistance.
For true intellectual growth, one must be willing not only to entertain opposing views but to risk being changed by them. Without that willingness, even the most articulate and thoughtful engagement remains, at its core, a well-defended fortress.
So like I said, pure, evil AI slop, is evil, addictive and must be banned and lock up illegal gpu abusers and keep a gpu owners registry and keep track on those who would use them to abuse the shining light of our society, and who try to snuff them out like a bad level of luigi’s mansion
But Peterson is a fuckhead… So it’s accurate in this case. Afaik he does do the things it says.
That’s the addiction talking. Use common sense! AI bad
Oh you are actually trying to say that AI isn’t a stain on existence. Weird.
I’m saying it is what it is.
This was one of the posts of all time.
New copy pasta just dropped
