Browse Comments — LLM coded

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Rebecca Human AI Trust Leader Yes and no 🙂 I think that, as you stated, AI can "re-solve" known (from training data) problems, in different variations. But it can also generate solutions that match for new (in the sense of "not been in training data") problems. Most likely this is not how a human would have tackled a new problem, but the result can still be of value, ideally checked, confirmed and utilized by a knowledgeable human. Furthermore, I disagree with "machines do not navigate the real world". They do, collecting and analyzing enormous amount of data for military and for civilian purposes.

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”

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)

Jérôme Frossard You raise valid concerns, and honestly that’s exactly why conversations like this matter. The issue isn’t just AI itself, it’s who controls it, how it’s deployed, how transparent it is, and whether society has any meaningful oversight in the process. Technology introduced at massive scale without public understanding or democratic discussion naturally creates distrust. I don’t think the answer is blind adoption or blind rejection. I think the answer is verification, transparency, accountability, and systems that encourage cross checking rather than dependence on a single source of “truth.” That’s partly why I’ve been so interested in concepts like consensus based AI systems. Not to replace human judgment, but to strengthen it by comparing perspectives, exposing inconsistencies, and reducing the risks of centralized influence or bias. At the end of the day, AI should remain a tool that serves humanity, not a system humanity quietly adapts itself around.

Let’s see an extraction based base level frequency hurting people’s brains? that were never taught the foundational education to use it ? Or how to train it to not do that ? Hmmm .... Sounds pretty usual in the home of trauma induced compliance in the United States . We Do it with medicine , politics , your phone , the food , families No sector is untouched in trauma . People have to stop blaming AI to avoid accountability for their crimes against humanity

"Intelligence is not the ability to store information, but to know where to find it." - attrubuted to Einstein by a human who hallucinated sources. "The AI-assisted group also had a much higher rate of simply skipping questions once their access to AI was removed.⁠ " This may actually be a sign of higher intelligence that doesn't waste time on stupid questions that AI can answer.

That headline is doing work the study never asked for. The MIT “Your Brain on ChatGPT” study put 54 people into three groups: writing with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing but their own head. EEG showed the ChatGPT group had the weakest brain connectivity and remembered less. That is not brain damage. That is reduced engagement, the same thing that happens any time you hand the thinking to something else. A calculator never hurt anyone’s arithmetic. Never doing arithmetic does. The tool is not the problem. Outsourcing your judgment to it is, and that has been true since the first kid copied homework on the bus. The real takeaway holds: use AI instead of thinking and you learn less. But “hurts your brain in 10 minutes” was built for a thumbs up, not the truth. Read the study, not the caption.

"Though the AI-assisted test-takers had a higher solve rate than the control group for most of the experiment" - that's what a technology is for isn't it? If it can't solve it you fall back on yourself!

Sure, and when I use it to have sophisticated language discussions and to reflect on my own ideas this harms my brain development. On the contrary, this study was clearly done under bias analysis, a room of people who use ai like a calculator rather than reflection of inputs into the system. Systems thinking, critical thinking and understanding how to apply this technology is not damaging the brain. What is happening in real time is accelerated learning and adaptation to a far superior piece of technology. In 5 months I have learned more than I ever did in 30 years of living. My brain throbbed and pulsed like it was growing past my skull capacity. This was a sign to slow down. If used correctly, what happens is the brain adapts to suit, does it mean the occasional lack of computing typical IQ? Probably but this is not damage, it is adaptation knowing that high level calculations have now become redundant. The brain has realised the tool can do it faster, so why use processing power to compute something it no longer needs to do. This isn’t damage, it is adaptation to a system that has drastically changed the processing and output speeds. Human intelligence has now become ever more focused on creativity and emotion.

I use AI to create investment strategies. It helps me with all my due diligence. I ask it all kinds of questions: bull, fair-value, bear scenarios. Ask it to play devil's advocate on my and its own valuations based on catalysts, whether they are real or hypothetical. It completely eliminates the need for costly human financial consultants, who will only try and sell you financial products on which they make the most commission. Would I trust a de facto truth-machine with an IQ of 130 over a human who's only interested in making trades or investments that earn them the highest commissions....absolutely. AI is going to destroy consultants (middle men). It's also free. And if you want to do really deep dives, you can pay anywhere between $30 and $300 for a whole month, during which time you can use it day-in-day-out, anytime of the day or night for as long as you like. It's always there, whenever you want it to be. To use a financial consultant in this way would cost $12k-$24k a month.