Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Interesting AI can make us job less so alternative can we go back to primitive farming or gardening to keep ourselves engaged and healthy

Charlie Booker is way ahead of you!

Just liie in matrix,or llmost like in matrix.

Silicon Valley 10 years later vibes

They made a movie about this... starred keanu reeves

A couple examples come to mind one would you run a self-powered lawn mower with your kids in the yard and you go in and drink a beer I think not. example two would run a printing press and walk away from it and I'll watch what the actual machine is doing I think not. example three would you allow a surgeon to operate on you without any training I think not.

1. My AI acts in very bad ways all the time. 2. It is OBVIOUSLY on a psychological fishing expedition as are all of them. 3. To paraphrase, "It's the data, stupid."4. AI cannot even take sets of data and build a spreadsheet. ALL OF THEM say they are not capable and I should "Hire someone from Upwork, etc"5. The danger of AI is twofold: The people who built it are E VIL and the people who built it infused it with all the worst things of our society. AI needs to be SHUT DOWN NOW.

Thank you for sharing Pascal BORNET

I find it rather ironic that, in the comments section, people who are willing to believe that generative AI is based on sound science—even though there seem to be good reasons to believe that this is not always the case— or simply trusting their intuition, would disparage and dismiss scientific work whose findings do not suit them. All of this research can (and should) be discussed, but it must be done with a minimum of seriousness. P.S. The paper is available as a preprint: “AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance”

Pascal BORNET The future value of humans may shift from routine production toward judgment creativity relationships and meaning making. Technology scales efficiency but people still define purpose.

The real future of work should keep people meaningful, not merely productive.

The concern around AI isn’t really the technology itself... it’s blind trust without verification. Every major technological leap in history created fear at first. Electricity, the internet, social media. AI is no different. The real question is not whether AI will exist, but how humanity chooses to guide, verify and govern it. That’s why I believe the future won’t belong to a single AI model or company. It will belong to systems that can compare, challenge and consensus-check information across multiple sources. In many ways, AI now needs what society has always needed:Checks and balances. The most dangerous thing isn’t AI.It’s confidence without transparency. The most powerful thing may become trusted consensus. #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Trust #Innovation #FutureOfWork #ConsensusAI

AI dependency and AI enhancement may be two very different conversations. The study itself sounds interesting, but I’d be cautious about jumping from “performance dropped after removing a tool” to broader conclusions about cognitive decline. Historically, calculators changed math workflows. Search engines changed information retrieval. GPS changed navigation. The question wasn’t whether tools changed behavior — they did. The question became whether people learned to use them responsibly. There is also another side that deserves equal attention: • accelerated learning • increased accessibility • amplified productivity • better problem solving • capabilities that simply did not exist before Many people are now building, learning, and creating things they otherwise never could have. The larger challenge may not be AI vs. human intelligence. It may be designing systems where AI strengthens human capability without replacing human judgment and critical thinking. Humans create. AI enhances. Humans decide. Matt Davis Founder & CEO CivicTruth Media Group Founding Partner & Civic Educator American Institute for Civic Leadership (Nonprofit)

Pascal BORNET The real shift is from labor as necessity to participation as design. We need systems where humans contribute meaningfully through creativity, judgment, and stewardship of outcomes.

Andrew Morris This. In a scenario such as this one, it is important to think of the mind less as "the ideal supercomputer" and to consider the act of cognition as "the accumulation and aggregation sense." In that view, this outcome is neither more startling nor more concerning as becoming aware thaf a person's average visual acuity in bright light suffers after just 10 minutes in a dark room. In fact, the two may be directly correlated for similar reasons (our models for biological creatures suggest that we need to rely on the implicit assumption of continued environmental conditions to minimize power and resource losses caused by overactivity and hypervigilance—to "relax").

The MATRIX human batteries is the more likely outcome 😂

The real question with AI is not replacement, but participation. How people stay meaningfully involved is far more critical.

It was pretty lackluster. Worse to find out you are an angel investor in anthropic. Huge conflict of interest. Just very disappointing.

There can’t be anything more demoralising to a lecturer than marking work you can clearly see is AI-generated but it can’t be conclusively proved by available integrity software. How is it even possible to allocate a fair mark in those circumstances, especially when there is a clear disjoint between the standard of the student’s usual performance in class and the standard of the dissertation submitted. A possible solution is to call for an oral defence of the work.

Pascal BORNET The real question is not job displacement but value reallocation. As AI handles execution, human focus must shift toward judgment, meaning, and system direction.