This sounds like FUD to get people to abandon one of our strongest cognitive enhancing toolsof all time

georgemcbay 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> This sounds like FUD to get people to abandon one of our strongest cognitive enhancing toolsof all time

AI's existence is like the mental equivalent of a heavy weighted barbell that also happens to be edible and tastes delicious. You could use it in a way to get in great shape, you could also use it in a way where you get type 2 diabetes.

It is up to you and your own experiences to decide how that is likely to go for most people.

▲

erelong 2 days ago | parent [-]

Exactly... I mean the article is "tautological nonsense". Misuse a hammer and you hit your hand, use it well and you drive nails quicker. That's why I just dismiss these posts as FUD from the rich who want people to turn in their hammers so they can move along quicker with less competition.

	▲	jdlshore 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s a report on what looks a very well-researched study. You may not like the results, but calling it nonsense is ridiculous. Did you even read the article?
	▲	intended 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’ve just gone through 3 separate papers on the cognitive impact on GenAI, and the points being raised are far more nuanced than what you are assuming them to be. I mean, you could read the papers themselves, they aren’t inimical to your position by nature. For example, one of the more salient results is that the more confident you are in AI, the less likely you are to check the output. When a new invention arrives on the scene, its properties need to be mapped.

▲

WolfeReader 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nope, its a well-researched article which shows its sources and qualifies its conclusions. You may not like the conclusions, but that doesn't make it FUD.

▲

nickphx 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

so dear user, how does a non-deterministic black box of bullshit enhance cognition?

	▲	ragequittah an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Just a simple test for people who believe this: Step 1) read the article Step 2) have a frontier AI model summarize the article Step 3) find any 'bullshit' that it comes up with Step 4) do it 5 more times in a row because obviously the non-determinism will make it say something different each time and it should bs you at least once since it's simply a bs machine anyways Step 5) report your findings