Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)
Close reading of the corpus at each pipeline stage: raw → clean → relevant → coded.
110
comments matched
· page 1 of 6
That’s ridiculous
This is the same discussion as the one people had when smartphones took of, when the internet became popular, etc... And I see no reason for it not to end in the exact same way as the previous did.
Absurd. And how statistically significant were the results?
Use of computers is not without consequences, you literally speak to yourself on a daily basis, with AI this self-talk is now also infused with an external identity Smartphones are found to become 'psychologically integral' to a person's daily life, meaning that we think of (and feel about) a smartphone as an identity, not as a device we use as a tool. I've noticed how people who start using AI become 'fervent supporters' and seem to lose track of nuance and impact regarding. Repeat examples of 'big names' publishing with AI fabricated nonsense inside speaks volumes about how deep this goes. AI is diverting attention away from one self and seems to some degree also dissolve a sense of self. In the sense that without AI people take themselves into the equation when it concerns ethics, accountability, responsibility while with AI they seem to tend to absolve themselves from any such thing. People are not aware they're falling into this trap and have no counter indication this may harm themselves and others. Pressure is put onto others to now makes 'split second decisions' based on the content they offer made with use of AI, as if their reputation is good enough for the content to drive decision making. Worrisome really.
In the military, Colonel Fieschi, in charge of 1,400 kids, always said you have to struggle to get it if not you cheat with yourself. Train, train: mission is sacred: giving up is not in the dictionary. Effort more important than talent. So invent a new way of doing business outside of AI if not they own it. AI becomes your landlord and you land in the poor’s house.
If there are follow- up studies, I would gladly volunteer for the control group as someone who has never used AI. ( And it’s not that I’m a snob, I’ve also never used online banking, my car has crank down windows, I’ve never seen Netflix and have no other social media than LinkedIn— which I’m sort of rethinking as it seems to have turned into a social media wasteland.)
“Oh, Almighty Algorithm, forgive us, for we know not what we are doing”. — [Post: We Are Talking About The Wrong Exponential Curve: AI Is Nót Our Problem] — [Post: ‘How Long Can You Tread Water In A Digestive Fluid?’] — [Post: ‘AI Is A Moot Point. It Is Dead Already’] — [Post: ‘We Should STOP Using AI Before We Are All Rendered Unskilled, Dependent And Stupid’] — [Post: ‘Imagine Worrying About AI All The Time’] — [Post: ‘That’s What I Mean Exactly: AI Will Soon Be Rendered A Moot Point’] — [Post: ‘We Like Likes And We Like To Be Liked — We’re Even Willing To Become Dumb To Be Worshipped And Adored’] — [Post: ‘Make a Bold Decision About Writing With AI: Don't Write With AI’] — [Post: ‘When Words Are Perceived As Numbers Any Narrative Turns Into A Thick Grey Muck’] — [Post: ‘We Have Invented The Perfect Medium To Keep Ourselves Locked In To Reaffirm Our Belief System’]
Stop asking Ai to make decisions for you. It's a fine tool, not a therapist. Note: I did not read the article, im sure they did a fine job setting up the experiment.
I use AI mostly like research assistant. I find that useful and I learn a lot. The problem that arises is that I tend to go much too deep into analysing things, because with AI it’s so easy. But hey, it’s a learning curve too; when to jump out from the analysis paralysis.
He’s sweeping conclusion from a very specific quasi experiment. And moreso, the domain is not an everyday literacy for many. You’d have to count for age, experience, education, all of the intervening variables. If the conclusion is AI has a negative impact in this population examined and it is not or is statistically significant, and it is limited to the study population then, maybe that has a chance of flying. I simply don’t buy the conclusion that AI hurts your brain in 10 min. Let alone would it be reasonable to accept the word “dangerous”. I’ve used AI extensively and my brain has not expired or shrink or anything of the above. I found I learned an exceptional amount of information and it was invaluable.
Robots don’t innovate. AI may be efficient at calculating, compiling, and presenting solutions from existing solutions. However, AI cannot invent / create original solutions to real-world problems or improve life because machines do not navigate the real world. Innovation requires a break from existing thinking and solutions. Human ingenuity is motivated by life experiences. The best innovators seek to improve quality of life for humans. Benjamin Franklin Thomas Edison Nikola Tesla Michelangelo Steve Jobs ...you get the idea. Many studies now reveal the cognitive trade-off from depending on AI. The quest for discovery is the very essence of life, for those who choose to live it (vs. having it curated for them). Balance is key, in my humble opinion.
A C none of those technologies made people smarter while they made people more and more dependent. That's how addiction works.
I guess im dumb now. Im vibecoding every Day from coding to thinking how to optimice the software/system, make it secure, and testing like never before. I read more code now, like my last 3 Jobs together in more than 10 years of experiencie.
Be sure to use it more than ten minutes. You'll be safe then. 🤣
People from the 80s would say this already about us in 2026.... The best saying sums this up cleanly.... It is what it is
Sad at all this Ai fear mongering.
A ~1.3–1.5 kg human brain operating on nearly 20 watts ultimately designed the entire gigawatt-scale AI ecosystem. That contrast itself is fascinating. Biological intelligence evolved through uncertainty, memory formation, adaptive stress, and continuous problem-solving. AI is not dangerous by itself. But continuous cognitive offloading without mental engagement may gradually condition humans toward dependency instead of deep reasoning. In engineering terms: unused systems lose operational sharpness. The human cognitive system is no exception.
This might just be a context switching problem in general. That is to say if people are doing something it takes some time to get back to doing it another way, no mater the tool. It would be interesting to see what other tool use looks like in the study. I.E. paper/white board, or calculator (I would say abacus but despite the high rates of success of abacus users in doing math faster even without the tool it's a rarer skill to have). The inverse should also be tested. If the context switch is the problem, then the group that was solving in their heads or by hand, switching to a new mode (by hand, in their head, with AI), my hypotheses would be, the same decline for some short period of time.
This is explored in my new book on Artificial Intelligence - AIlienMinds summary Optimists foretell a golden age of Al-managed abundance. Doomers cry: vast cyber-minds will crush old style humanity! ... or make us irrelevant. Meanwhile, geniuses fostering the artificial intelligence boom clutch clichés rooted in our dismal past... or else in cheap sci-fi. Is there still time for perspective? - on 4 billion years of evolution? - or 60 centuries of feudal stagnation? - or how we handled prior tech revolutions? - or mistakes that keep getting repeated... - or ways this time may be different? From Al-driven unemployment to deceitful images, to hallucinating LLMs and tools for tyrants... to potential wondrous gifts by machines of loving grace... come evade the standard ruts.
Connie Delisle ..There's other words to use instead of HURT...maybe changing the chemistry in your brain?..Losing common sense like too many degrees we accumulate ?