Now a days people refer to AI instantly for an answer. Maybe it’s a problem they could have solved within 10min in their head or a question they could have done an internet search on and read a few forums to figure out. However, now people go straight to AI which is known to give many many wrong answers.
I know a couple people that fit this bill and now I almost completely disregard what they say. We’ll even be talking face to face and they’ll ask AI something from our conversation in real time.
Yes, I disregard idiots but that was true before AI too.
Removed by mod
The thing is the people I thought about when writing this aren’t slow or dumb. However, for some reason they decided to jump on the bandwagon of new technology and let the convenience win
I do because those people are fascists or catering to them. AI in its present form is unethical by its nature. Imprison the thieving billionaire surveillance cartel and more options open up.
I separate those people.
If they said, "Chatgpt said… " And they are completely confident that it’s correct, I disregard them. This includes the AI cucks who send literal screenshots from AI as some sort of “proof”.
If they said, "The AI slop I got was… " Then they’re more likely to critically think about it. They know this is a third voice, rather than the definite answer.
The potential answer could be vs. the answer is.
I occasionally do the later, I always give a “take this with a pinch of salt” kinda thing because I know from personal experience LLMs love to spew out complete garbage.
I only ever use it for surface level yes/no type questions. The sort of thing that a 5 year old bothers their Dad about, inconsequential trivia.
This is what I think is fine.
Asking AI about the meaning of some TV show finale or if a movie is worth watching. Have it help you research travel ideas. Ask if it’s true pirates had wooden cocks. Dumb shit.
Where it’s really fucky is when people using it to do political arguments, have it find legal loopholes (haha fuck you CEO of Krafton), generate essays and creative work (oh fuck all those ai blogs and ai art)…
It’s lazy as hell and unfortunately, people are lazy and refuse to go beyond the immediate AI answer.
Im fine with them if they say claude made, or chatgpt made, not “I made”
Seems reasonable
With search engines propping up AI answers and even newsrooms using AI, its the unfortunate norm now.
We call it “Our drunk friend” since its always confident and nice but also spits out bullshit at random.
On the other side of things, I need to evaluate an AI debugging tool and I feel like a tool any time I need to ask a colleague if what it just said makes any sense when I don’t know an area that well that they are better with. I don’t get how people can cite LLM output without being embarrassed about it, mortified even.
Seems like an evolution of people having opinions on stuff they hardly know anything about. Like headline reading or politics of a country they don’t reside in
It definitely colors my opinion knowing someone routinely uses GenAI and LLM’s, especially if it’s for little things like writing an email, because I write my own emails and a unique voice is important to me. I feel like writing something in my own voice is a way of showing respect for other people and their time.
Basically it makes me think a person is either lazy or ignorant.
Yeah, I agree.
I’m someone who, when overwhelmed by life (often), opening and reading emails is disproportionately difficult for me. The idea of spending the time and energy to read an email that someone couldn’t even be bothered to write is offensive to me
How many times until you disregard them?. Is it like if you see someone using it one time or is it after the tenth time? What’s the cutoff or frequency compared to a standard search? Is it if 50%+ of their searches are through AI or is it like 5%+?
If you actively use AI once I no longer respect your opinion.
Seems a tad extreme. So like If a medical professional actively uses alpha fold to develop a treatment you no longer respect their opinion?
So are you paid by the comment or what?
That’s something I’m in the process of figuring out. My Spidey senses are on high alert for if what these people say sound like it could be from AI or their own brain functioning. It’s sad that I have to put effort into discerning a difference. Some of these people use AI more than the others. I know one really does seem to rely on Perplexity quite a bit
How do you feel like a Wikipedia level of usage? That is it pulls links to actual research and studies that are then verified? Of course not all research is created equally.
That goes into the topic if how credible any given study is and would need to be looked into first hand regardless of finding it on Wikipedia or through AI. Pretty much everything and everyone’s opinion has a bias, more so now a days with politics putting a spin into everything and LLMs are also created with biases. I don’t trust AI to give a credible answer, it consistently gives incorrect answers, I don’t have much reason to give people credibly if they constantly spout what an AI told them
disregard? mostly. they can be somewhat entertaining once in a while long as theyre not in charge of anything
True that
I also disregard any screenshots of Google ai overview, it’s been proven to be easily manipulated.
I disregard all of these people where I can. I can’t disregard my CEO, and he does it more than anyone I have encountered.
I feel for you, cause I’m in the same position. The upper management class seem to be particularly drawn to LLMs.
Most of the people I know who do that are people who I already don’t respect. It really pisses me off when people who are smart and should know better do it.
As far as possible, yes.
Boss brought in a guy from some neighboring company doing smart screens or something, hyped how innovative they were. So we did an informal chat over lunch where I got to explain our domain and approach. Asked him his thoughts and he said I should ask AI. Like why am I even talking to the guy.
Yes. I have a family member who has to ask Claude everything, and he gets back these self-affirming answers that further cement his already-held opinions.
Its existence depends on you liking it, and it is programmed to suck up to you
I have instructed mine to be dismissive, insulting, and question everything I say.
It works pretty well for getting answers.
I hate what AI is doing to society, the people who own it and are weaponizing it, but I think it’s silly to claim it is useless.
It’s great for getting quick answers that would take twenty minutes to google.
You just have to be not a fucking dumbass and not believe what it says outright and also know within which categories it can be trusted and which not.
It’s ok to be politically opposed to AI and also acknowledge its practical uses.
I’ve had some bad experiences using it for quick answers. I tried it to summarize studies for an open book exam, and it gave me some blatantly wrong answers, as well as some answers that would change based on how I posed the question. I’m not saying it’s entirely useless, but you have to check the source on everything it tells you, at which point you end up doing the reading yourself anyway.
That has been my experience too
Genuinely, what you get from AI is what you put in. If you’re a dumb asshole, you will get dumb asshole shit. If you’re not, it’s a serious boon.
Let’s separate the use of the tool from the people who deploy it.
AI is fucking evil, because of the implementation, not because of what it is.
This was always inevitable.
Capitalism is the monster.
I’ve heard of the sycophatic behavior but never heard from someone specifically from an experience themselves. That’s crazy to hear
No. I judge people for being wrong, not how they got wrong answers. If they are right, they’re right.
I judge people for lack of critical thinking. Cheating your way through med school doesn’t inspire confidence when under your scalpel.
