People who wrote an essay with an LLM did not show signs of having having written it themselves, on account of, they hadn’t. Just like I couldn’t tell you the remainder of a long division I put in a calculator, because it went straight to a mantissa. I didn’t lose the ability to to math. (At worst, I don’t wanna, now that I have a calculator.)
The only long-term aspect of this study was a dozen people coming back months later and switching sides. So even pretending it’s asking the right questions, the tabloid interpretation should expect to see the brain-only essayists fumble it and the LLM essayists sharper than ever. But that’s plainly not what happened.
They didn’t even measure essay quality. It was just about EEG activity, incidental recall, and self-reported degree of ownership. But that nerd shit doesn’t get clicks, so every fucking headline is like Does chatbot is brain damage?! or Permanent cyber-psychosis ten minutes!! or If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. It is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much while for the most part they know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their fellows.
Oh sorry, that last one was Plato arguing against the detrimental cognitive effect of books.
You constructed an entirely fictional argument about a study that you quoted. That’s not what I was referring to. It’s a pointless discussion though. None of these AI companies are financially sustainable (except for the shovel sellers, obviously).
Feel free to name whichever study you think says what y’all keep repeating, because I haven’t seen that shit. Every time I go searching for some dire evidence of dain bramage from spicy autocomplete, it comes back to one of three poorly-designed studies that fail to distinguish this new tool from any other tool and categorically do not match their pearl-clutching news coverage.
It’s a pointless discussion though.
This is bad faith. Pivoting to unrelated criticism is pretense. You can’t make some damning claim, glibly dismiss an effort to explain you’re mistaken, and then gallop toward some other topic entirely. That’s working backwards from a conclusion and failing to update your beliefs.
No shit these companies are boned. Local models will survive and proliferate on their demonstrable merits. Decentralized development will continue, if nowhere else, among the unceasingly horny randos doing image and video stuff.
We will in fact have to live with programs that can program, but thankfully, using one won’t give you a lobotomy.
Feel free to name whichever study you think says what y’all keep repeating, because I haven’t seen that shit.
This names a few. Also, I can speak from personal experience and from what other people using AI tell me. It does indeed negatively impact your ability do the thinking on your own. If you don’t feel that impact, maybe in your case there wasn’t much to lose in the first place :) If you “haven’t seen this shit” then maybe you should take off the blindfold.
This is bad faith. Pivoting to unrelated criticism is pretense.
Not at all. It’s just another very relevant part of the argument. The stealing machine is power and money hungry af and it’s not being fed. It will die.
failing to update your beliefs.
Beliefs are unrelated. It’s the reality of these companies’ numbers. Show me at least ONE of them that isn’t selling hw and is profitable.
Decentralized development will continue, if nowhere else, among the unceasingly horny randos doing image and video stuff.
Were is this decentralized development you speak of? Also, training an AI to create porn is pretty different than one trained to do coding, writing, research, etc.
We will in fact have to live with programs that can program, but thankfully, using one won’t give you a lobotomy.
Talking about facts as if you knew the future, lol. Is that way Coreweave is going down the drain? It won’t give you a lobotomy but it will make you dumber and also use any data you provide it.
That’s not what the damn study says.
People who wrote an essay with an LLM did not show signs of having having written it themselves, on account of, they hadn’t. Just like I couldn’t tell you the remainder of a long division I put in a calculator, because it went straight to a mantissa. I didn’t lose the ability to to math. (At worst, I don’t wanna, now that I have a calculator.)
The only long-term aspect of this study was a dozen people coming back months later and switching sides. So even pretending it’s asking the right questions, the tabloid interpretation should expect to see the brain-only essayists fumble it and the LLM essayists sharper than ever. But that’s plainly not what happened.
They didn’t even measure essay quality. It was just about EEG activity, incidental recall, and self-reported degree of ownership. But that nerd shit doesn’t get clicks, so every fucking headline is like Does chatbot is brain damage?! or Permanent cyber-psychosis ten minutes!! or If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. It is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only the semblance of wisdom, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much while for the most part they know nothing. And as men filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to their fellows.
Oh sorry, that last one was Plato arguing against the detrimental cognitive effect of books.
You constructed an entirely fictional argument about a study that you quoted. That’s not what I was referring to. It’s a pointless discussion though. None of these AI companies are financially sustainable (except for the shovel sellers, obviously).
Feel free to name whichever study you think says what y’all keep repeating, because I haven’t seen that shit. Every time I go searching for some dire evidence of dain bramage from spicy autocomplete, it comes back to one of three poorly-designed studies that fail to distinguish this new tool from any other tool and categorically do not match their pearl-clutching news coverage.
This is bad faith. Pivoting to unrelated criticism is pretense. You can’t make some damning claim, glibly dismiss an effort to explain you’re mistaken, and then gallop toward some other topic entirely. That’s working backwards from a conclusion and failing to update your beliefs.
No shit these companies are boned. Local models will survive and proliferate on their demonstrable merits. Decentralized development will continue, if nowhere else, among the unceasingly horny randos doing image and video stuff.
We will in fact have to live with programs that can program, but thankfully, using one won’t give you a lobotomy.
This names a few. Also, I can speak from personal experience and from what other people using AI tell me. It does indeed negatively impact your ability do the thinking on your own. If you don’t feel that impact, maybe in your case there wasn’t much to lose in the first place :) If you “haven’t seen this shit” then maybe you should take off the blindfold.
Not at all. It’s just another very relevant part of the argument. The stealing machine is power and money hungry af and it’s not being fed. It will die.
Beliefs are unrelated. It’s the reality of these companies’ numbers. Show me at least ONE of them that isn’t selling hw and is profitable.
Were is this decentralized development you speak of? Also, training an AI to create porn is pretty different than one trained to do coding, writing, research, etc.
Talking about facts as if you knew the future, lol. Is that way Coreweave is going down the drain? It won’t give you a lobotomy but it will make you dumber and also use any data you provide it.