This: don’t use AI to replace you, use it as a Texas sharp shooter to answer questions you have for which you’d otherwise used a www search engine.
I personally use ChatGPT as I used Google 20 years ago to find out about stuff a quick way. That’s my personal ELI4 (explain like I’m 4 yo). It’s also perfect to ingest an appliance manual and just do the tl;dr for you. Also, when looking to purchase stuff, it’s much better than Google and also does not propose sponsored contents.
I tried vibe coding an app and it worked but it was tedious to have so many recursion tests to perform as 4o will systematically add bugs alongside new functionalities. In this matter, I’d say it makes me better at troubleshooting, which is what my job consists of BTW.
Also prompting an AI is a skill: one has to seriously address it. The omg lol texting generation will not feel in power there.
Before we warn people about AI and resulting brain dysfunctions, I think the screen time of the youth as well as it’s connectivity should be addressed, because it already made too many victims.
Tl;dr: ChatGPT can be cool and fun, even useful, but it doesn’t replace a mind of one’s own. Use it, but not for more than you actually need it. Keep your brain on everytime lest that sneaky program might brainfsck you.🤓
BTW: who sponsored this study? Was the sample population adequate? What was the error rate?
Incorrect. Humans can not process data at AI speeds. AI is necessary for human development to continue past a point. And now may be a good time for everyone to look up the meaning of the word ARTIFICIAL. It does not mean fake.
I understand this statement given the intentional degradation of the Google search engine and the manipulation and censoring of output.
However, I would strongly disagree with the statement. A skilled user who understands how to ask questions, leverage personas and avoid AI hallucinations in the output can get results that dramatically exceed anything a search engine can provide.
Now that being said, I am not saying AI is a net positive. I am not at all surprised by the clinical trial referenced in this post and it's exactly why I limit my use of AI. I have colleagues that literally allow AI to write their business emails and that seems like a great way (to me at least) for one's brain to turn into mush eventually.
But regardless, there's an enormous delta between the output of AI and a search engine, as long as the user is reasonably proficient in engaging with the AI.
Well, it depends what you use a search engine for, or for that matter, AI.
AI is great at giving short answers to simple questions by querying the carefully curated walled garden that google has become. If that's your end goal, AI will get you there faster, to be sure.
If, instead, you're using a search engine to begin a journey of discovery or knowledge building and want options and differing viewpoints - something you could have gotten from Google 20 years ago, then, right now, AI isn't going to help you.
Or God forbid you just want to explore with no real goal in mind - some of my most interesting times on the web were exploring links that got pulled up and really weren't pertinent to my search but that caught my eye and sent me down a rabbit hole. That doesn't happen when AI (and google) is the gatekeeper to the results. Sometimes efficiency sucks all the joy out of life.
It's also a good idea to ask AI questions you already know the answer to. Watching it squirm and wriggle to justify lying to you is quite comical and scary at the same time. Think Killer Clowns from Outer Space.
This: don’t use AI to replace you, use it as a Texas sharp shooter to answer questions you have for which you’d otherwise used a www search engine.
I personally use ChatGPT as I used Google 20 years ago to find out about stuff a quick way. That’s my personal ELI4 (explain like I’m 4 yo). It’s also perfect to ingest an appliance manual and just do the tl;dr for you. Also, when looking to purchase stuff, it’s much better than Google and also does not propose sponsored contents.
I tried vibe coding an app and it worked but it was tedious to have so many recursion tests to perform as 4o will systematically add bugs alongside new functionalities. In this matter, I’d say it makes me better at troubleshooting, which is what my job consists of BTW.
Also prompting an AI is a skill: one has to seriously address it. The omg lol texting generation will not feel in power there.
Before we warn people about AI and resulting brain dysfunctions, I think the screen time of the youth as well as it’s connectivity should be addressed, because it already made too many victims.
Tl;dr: ChatGPT can be cool and fun, even useful, but it doesn’t replace a mind of one’s own. Use it, but not for more than you actually need it. Keep your brain on everytime lest that sneaky program might brainfsck you.🤓
BTW: who sponsored this study? Was the sample population adequate? What was the error rate?
The sad thing, is that if we had the Google of 20 years ago, we wouldn't have a fraction of the need for AI to search for us.
Google has created the problem and then spent a fortune developing the "solution".
Back then I was a huge fan of AltaVista.
I miss Ask Jeeves
Yandex is like the old google used to be, but the capchas are too much.
Incorrect. Humans can not process data at AI speeds. AI is necessary for human development to continue past a point. And now may be a good time for everyone to look up the meaning of the word ARTIFICIAL. It does not mean fake.
Now might be a good time to look up the word "intelligence" because AI ain't it.
This. (And if I knew how to increase the font size, put in italic caps and color it bright red in bold, I would do it)
I understand this statement given the intentional degradation of the Google search engine and the manipulation and censoring of output.
However, I would strongly disagree with the statement. A skilled user who understands how to ask questions, leverage personas and avoid AI hallucinations in the output can get results that dramatically exceed anything a search engine can provide.
Now that being said, I am not saying AI is a net positive. I am not at all surprised by the clinical trial referenced in this post and it's exactly why I limit my use of AI. I have colleagues that literally allow AI to write their business emails and that seems like a great way (to me at least) for one's brain to turn into mush eventually.
But regardless, there's an enormous delta between the output of AI and a search engine, as long as the user is reasonably proficient in engaging with the AI.
Well, it depends what you use a search engine for, or for that matter, AI.
AI is great at giving short answers to simple questions by querying the carefully curated walled garden that google has become. If that's your end goal, AI will get you there faster, to be sure.
If, instead, you're using a search engine to begin a journey of discovery or knowledge building and want options and differing viewpoints - something you could have gotten from Google 20 years ago, then, right now, AI isn't going to help you.
Or God forbid you just want to explore with no real goal in mind - some of my most interesting times on the web were exploring links that got pulled up and really weren't pertinent to my search but that caught my eye and sent me down a rabbit hole. That doesn't happen when AI (and google) is the gatekeeper to the results. Sometimes efficiency sucks all the joy out of life.
If you read the full report, you will find exactly this. The above article conveniently omits much of what the study found.
It's also a good idea to ask AI questions you already know the answer to. Watching it squirm and wriggle to justify lying to you is quite comical and scary at the same time. Think Killer Clowns from Outer Space.
Never met a Texas Sharp Shooter. Kek
Here: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/32/7/1363/3852142