This is an argument about a framing issue.

Markets try to put things in perspective to sell more. Remember razors used to be for men only? But hte brilliant marketer (forgot the name) made it so that trimming makes women more feminine? Now razor sales doubled?

Anyways, same thing here. Those who want to sell AIs want to make it as non-tool but know-it-all do-it-all for you. Those who wants to use it view it as a tool.

Just frame it the way you like to see how you should use/view AIs.

▲

jgord 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think 95% of the population wont get a choice of how AI is framed - the big money pushes how it will be framed for them, and most people have no training in a hard discipline like math or science, as a vaccine against that marketing push. t People will be corralled into trusting everything an LLM says as gospel, will be required to use if for almost all jobs, will have no actual choice in the matter - everyone who suggests otherwise is a luddite. [ Terence Tao is being painted as a luddite currently, for raising the concern of whether human-math will even survive ]

	▲	yipinwong 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		95% sounds too aggressive (where did you get this figure from???). Even now there are too many talkingheads on X and everywhere and share whatever they think. It's ultimately up to yourself which frame to adopt. It's not black or white. You can adopt it situationally. Lee Sedol left Go world after losing to AI. Terrence Tao could leave and look for something else following his suit. Voicing his opinion works and he can attempt to cope with AI changes with his own way. (be it training/education, etc or do something completely different)