Hi I have noticed on here that sometimes someone will reply with what looks like a very AI response to someone’s question. Initially the message looks kind and understanding, but after a while it seems obvious to me that it’s AI. (As someone who has tried Chat GPT a few times). I am wondering if people might use it to put a ‘good’ reply to a thread on here? And genuinely mean well, or if it’s just weird? It makes me feel uncomfortable that might just be me though.
Do you think that the spelling thing could be because you're writting less? My hand writting's terrible now, I only really write shopping lists now.
Apparently many young people are losing the ability to write by hand and to understand hand writing because they're so used to screen and typing.
the more you outsource the work to AI the less you are able to do it yourself so you are potentially accelerating your cognitive decline
Yes, this is true - I must keep this in mind, so thanks for the warning! I feel very lazy doing this too.
However, I find AI searches often bring more facets to my attention. I've been away from research and the workplace over 10 years and haven't kept up or know nothing of new subjects expressed on this site. When I was a child, there were few cars, for example, and neithercomputers nor calculators. When I talk about this, I feel as if I've lived in the stone age! I'm not maths or science au fait - though interested.
I read books for kids when tackling new subjects. I enjoy the pictogram astronomy by Alien0n3arth ; these would be excellent for primary kids to learn from. I wish I'd taken more notice of sciences at school, but my comprehensive teachers, on the whole seemed unenthusiastic about their subjects. My cognition is slowly declining, including spelling [I have to look up words I used be certain about], and it is important to me to try and counter this tendency.
I see it as immortality in this strange new part of the wyrd, co-pilot will eventually cease to exist and will be eaten by other larger models, but a bit of me will still be there.
Interestingly I have noticed recently a message that appears after a search stating that it was generated by AI and is not always correct.
I've found that it's answers are becoming more simplistic and if you want anything thats not that common you have to really push it to find out for you.
This is by design.
They don't want the free version to give you everything you need so they make performance decrease with time so you are encouraged to pay for a premium version that does what it used to do with some extras to make it seem better value.
It happens with smartphones (ie they get slower with progressive software updates to encourage upgrades) as well as software.
For as long as I can recall since about 2010 this is industry standard so expect it for everything and you won't be surprised.
Yes AI info isn't always correct. People can make better decisions about what to do with the information when they know where it came from and how it was produced.
You're saying here's some information that could be useful to you but I'm not taking any credit for it.
And it could also be out of date or incorrect which is something I remember happening on one of the threads where AI alone appeared to be used.
I don't think I've ever used AI to reply on here but sometimes I do use it when I'm struggling with sending a message or an email. Sometimes I can't quite put what I want to say into words properly so I put the general gist into AI and ask it to formulate a response. Sometimes I use it to make emails politer in work. I don't see any issues with using it this way.
If we are talking about getting AI to generate information as a response rather than just improving your own words then I think that is totally different. If people are doing that they, at the very least, need to state that you've used it. Similarly to posting links to websites. You're saying here's some information that could be useful to you but I'm not taking any credit for it.
it gives up and gives me tha answer to the last question I asked, even if that was some days before
It would freak me out that it keeps records like that.
Unless of course you're like me and argue with AI and just generally challenge it like I would a human, I've found a couple of times that the answers its given me have been plain wrong or wrong in the context in which I'm asking.
I also think AI is getting enshitification, just like the rest of the internet, I've found that it's answers are becoming more simplistic and if you want anything thats not that common you have to really push it to find out for you.
I keep giving mine a chip fart, I ask it something, and it goes off and thinks for ever such a long time and then it gives up and gives me tha answer to the last question I asked, even if that was some days before.
I see no issue in using AI to find information
I think the risk with this approach is the more you outsource the work to AI the less you are able to do it yourself so you are potentially accelerating your cognitive decline by not doing the research and analysis.
I see the appeal but I se so many people outsourcing this work and quoting what turns out to be erroneous info or badly thought through reasoning. I have worked extensively with AI and I don't trust it one bit.
Likewise. In fact I wouldn't know how to use AI on here other than when the phone changed a word to something I didn't type. I amend it if I notice.
I never use AI to write my material, here or anywhere else. However, using AI to find information helps me, as I age and my brain & cognitive function slows down. I see no issue in using AI to find information but if responses on here are AI written, and especially if the 'conclusions' are AI and not human generated, that ought to be stated. In fact, I think hiding AI-written posts ought to be banned unless the person clearly states this and also has a medical need for augmented communication.
Never be sorry for starting a chat - many on here are unable, or choose not to, contribute to threads, but nevertheless gain by reading them - comfort, information, ideas et al. You wrote a relevant subject line, so it's up to someone's own choice whether or not they read it. You did not set out to hurt anyone, therefore your intent is good. Also, no one can make you responsible for how they feel - though many try! Here are two useful articles from Psychology Today:
1. 4 reasons to take ownership of your feelings
2. taking responsibility for your emotions
[by the way, I used AI to search for these articles, but always write my own responses and material. My background is mental health so I know what to look for and where to look but as I get older and my brain slows AI is faster to find articles.]
So, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss AI too readily, as it definitely has its value - you just have to use it with due caution.
I think AI is achieving some valuable results in science. I just view its recreational value as massively outweighed by its destructiveness.
A narrative from a real person allows their character to show through. AI can’t do that.
Another good point that disturbs me when I read it.
I have to say that, yes, AI can’t always be relied on and often takes things out of context. However, despite those reservations, I’ve found that when chatting with my particular AI model (Copilot), it’s incredibly insightful and helpful about autistic behaviour, and very comforting when it simply tries to clarify why I’ve had these problems. It also seems to remember things, as it sometimes refers back to past discussions that relate to the current point under discussion. So, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss AI too readily, as it definitely has its value - you just have to use it with due caution.
Selling tech stock was a wise move for the reasons you state. Regarding the dip in price, I think it will likely rebound as they will need to fund their ‘improvements’, but of course, nothing is certain in the stock market. Perhaps AI’s environmental impact will gain prominence now that concerns over AI’s potential for harm is gaining traction. I do hope so.
I wouldn't know how to tell the difference between AI slop and something genuinely written by some humans.
There’s no denying that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference. I’ve learned to get a feel for the difference, but I’m not confident in relying on it without putting through an AI detector. Some AI narratives can feel patronising when they give positive feedback, in a way that genuine feedback doesn’t. There’s a flatness in tone and it summarises things too neatly. A narrative from a real person allows their character to show through. AI can’t do that.
toxic positivity,
A good description for an aspect I find disturbing.
I've become quite fond of AI recently and have been using Claude quite a lot. He/It is very knowledgeable on psychiatry, psychology, law, computer programming etc etc and it very good at piecing together information.
But it helps if you have an idea of what you are asking it. e.g. I've had Claude make me some custom computer programmes, but I knew what I wanted and how they were supposed to work. Likewise when I've asked about health issues it helps if you can give it some context, like what you know already and what you want to know. Then they can be really informative and help you understand something.
I don't really mind someone copy/pasting some AI response if they genuinely found it helpful themselves, but routinely doing this with incorrect information, toxic positivity, and excessive waffling, is just annoying.
