AI seems like a cult
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Easier to spot the idiots. |
Anonymous
Copilot is generally pretty bad. I wouldn’t use it for work unless I were trying to pull some code to build a macro or something. I think the fact that you feel informed after going to an “official Microsoft Copilot training” sort of tells us that you don’t know what’s going on. |
Anonymous
You sound like a man who just discovered spellcheck and took it personally. |
Anonymous
Thanks. And I am thumb typing with a bandaid/ hence the bad writing! |
Anonymous
No need to be insulting. I work at a Fortune 500 corporation in a planning and strategy area. This company does have Microsoft as an investor in a subsidiary and Microsoft makes our office software suite. I was invited to this workshop through LinkedIn outreach. When I went to this workshop it was full of white collar execs and managers from a wide variety of other large corporations in my metro. Feel free to mock away about how dumb, uncool, etc. large companies and their employees are. However, the reason that we use Microsoft is that they guarantee our business information isn't leaving the company/is adequately protected. My company considers many tech companies like Amazon and Google to be competitors so we certainly want to know where our info is going. I personally have not been involved in the selection of the AI and I have read that Claude and other AIs are better. But this is kind of like the situation with Bing. Anyone that's used Bing can understand what Google search does and whether it would be a mild help or a big help. They do the same thing, Bing's just not as good. Companies like mine employ millions of employees in the US and contribute hugely to the economy of the US. So if you think Microsoft CoPilot is junk, then you're undermining your arguments about how transformative all this AI is going to be to the labor market. Because a lot of us are going to be getting that as our easiest to use built-in software. |
Anonymous
|
I use AI to write all the time, but I don't have AI do the writing. Because it will do it wrong.
But I use the AI bot embedded in Word to ask questions, get ideas, find synonyms, even think through a problem I'm having. I use it like a combination of a more convenient/efficient search engine and a coworker who will let me bounce ideas of them when I need to. It has made me a more productive writer because when I'm working on something and hit a wall, instead of leaving my document and doing something else (including time wasters like looking at social media or playing a game on my phone, the stuff I used to do for procrastination) I just ask the AI chatbot how to push through. Like literally a fifth of my queries to the chatbot are stuff like "ugh I don't feel like finishing this section, how can I make myself do it?" And it will actually give me useful ways to do it. It's not groundbreaking stuff -- it will be like "some people find it useful to break up a piece of writing into smaller sections as a way to make it seem more manageable -- can you split the section up into sub-sections or paragraphs and just take them one by one?" Sure, that's something I should and can come up with on my own. But it's more effective when it comes from someone else! I could never turn in work that I literally submitted AI to write. I'd feel ashamed. Also, I'm a control freak about my writing and I'd wind up going through and editing it and probably changing the whole thing. But as a tool to help me get my work done? Hell yes, I love it. |
Anonymous
Ah, yes… spellcheck. Partially responsible for the increase in the number of adults who don’t know the difference between their, they’re, and there, or lead, lead, and led. Any more brilliant examples of how these tools are contributing to your idiocy? |
Anonymous
I had someone tell me not to worry about the hallucinations because "you can just instruct it not to." So ... why is that not the default? It's like building a word processor that inserts typos unless you tell it not to. |
Anonymous
So AI is just a replacement for you accessing the extremely simple concepts you (should have) learned in middle school? You readily admit that you aren’t familiar with the concept of writer’s block or taking breaks? My kindergartener already knows about brain breaks. Every example the folks in this thread give of the “power” of AI is just another data point proving the theory that it is a silky tool used exclusively by lazy idiots. |
Anonymous
Asked ChatGPT to critique your writing. It said: Your sentence is mostly clear, but there are a few small adjustments that could enhance clarity and impact: Tone and Word Choice: The phrase "it’s the blind leading the blind here" sounds slightly cliché and weakens the punch of your critique. Consider a more pointed analogy or phrase. Pacing: The sentence structure feels a bit meandering. Breaking it into two parts could improve readability. Specificity: The phrase "we’re all going to be worse off" could be more specific, reflecting exactly how the situation negatively impacts people. Pronoun Shifts: The switch from "your" to "we" to "this person" is a bit jarring and can make the statement feel inconsistent. It’s unclear whether the speaker is addressing the person directly, speaking to an audience about that person, or both. This lack of consistency makes the message feel muddled. Alternative Revision: "Jesus Christ, look at the quality of your own writing. How can we expect someone like you to judge ChatGPT’s outputs accurately? It’s a train wreck waiting to happen." |
Anonymous
This is such a weird idea of what lawyers do. You don't need to sift case law in order to object to testimony, you need to understand what is being said and how it matters. Could a very sophisticated AI do that through pattern recognition? Maybe once in a dozen times, if the person phrases it right. But then witnesses will be coached on how not to trigger the AI and you're back to needing a human in even those situations. Look, there are uses for automation. Maybe you could even use it in court for certain things like arraignment. But pretty much all the "it will replace X job" takes simply misunderstand what those jobs are. |
Anonymous
What a great way to prove the PP's point. The chatgpt criticism is inaccurate (eg, with regard to pronouns) and the omission of "blind leading the blind" removes both context and impact. Congrats, you drained a small pond somewhere to make that sentence worse. |
Anonymous
I asked ChatGPT to critique and re-write your response. Here's what it said: Here’s a critique of your passage from a clarity, tone, and impact perspective: 1. Clarity: The phrase “extremely simple concepts you (should have) learned in middle school” is wordy and disrupts the flow. Using parentheses makes it feel fragmented and less impactful. The second sentence “You readily admit that you aren’t familiar…” could be more concise. The final sentence, “Every example the folks in this thread give…” is a bit convoluted and could be more direct. 2. Tone: The tone is intentionally confrontational, but the mention of “my kindergartener” makes it sound more personal and less about the broader issue. It may weaken the critique because it shifts from being about the AI discussion to sounding like a personal jab. Phrases like “lazy idiots” are strong, but they may come off as overly aggressive rather than insightful. Using a sharper, more precise insult could make the point more effectively. 3. Impact: The passage feels like a mix between personal frustration and a general critique. Clarifying the target and keeping the tone consistent would make it more powerful. The word "silky" as a descriptor for a tool is a bit confusing and doesn’t fit well in this context. Revised Version: **"So AI is just your shortcut for grasping basic concepts you should’ve nailed in middle school? You’re really out here admitting you don’t know about writer’s block or taking breaks—things my kindergartener already understands? Every single example in this thread just confirms it: AI is nothing more than a shiny pacifier for lazy minds."** If anyone else would like their writing critiqued by ChatGPT, let me know! |
Anonymous
You have reading comprehension problems. Here, I'll excerpt the part you skipped right over without comprehending:"It's not groundbreaking stuff -- it will be like "some people find it useful to break up a piece of writing into smaller sections as a way to make it seem more manageable -- can you split the section up into sub-sections or paragraphs and just take them one by one?" Sure, that's something I should and can come up with on my own. But it's more effective when it comes from someone else!" Yes, obviously I know about "brain breaks" and writer's block. I'm also a professional writer who writes somewhere in the ballpark of 5-15k words a week, and often edits twice that. Some days are harder than others, and I have to have a broad variety of tools for breaking writer's block because I don't want to fall behind. I've found that AI can be a useful tool with that. I also have a really good office, listen to very specific music when I write, schedule meals and beverages to facilitate my writing, use workouts as motivators and body breaks, etc. My job is hard and not many people can do it. AI definitely can't do it. But it is a useful tool in helping me do it, so I use it. Why do you care? |
Anonymous
I asked ChatGPT to respond. Here's what it said: Their critique has some valid points but also some flawed reasoning. Here’s a breakdown: 1. Valid Points: They correctly point out that removing the phrase "blind leading the blind" can reduce the original statement's context and impact. The phrase is well-known and carries a metaphorical weight, so replacing it with a different analogy risks losing some of that cultural resonance. They also hint that my critique of the pronoun usage might be too focused on technical consistency rather than acknowledging the rhetorical impact of directly addressing the reader. 2. Flawed Reasoning: They label the ChatGPT critique as inaccurate but don’t clearly explain why the pronoun point was wrong. Simply stating it's inaccurate without offering a clear counterpoint is weak. The line "Congrats, you drained a small pond somewhere to make that sentence worse" is more of a snide remark than a substantive critique. It’s clever-sounding, but it lacks depth or meaningful feedback. 3. My Take: While they make a reasonable case for keeping "blind leading the blind" because of its cultural familiarity, their critique lacks substance and relies more on being clever than on offering practical improvements. The core of their argument is more about preference and perception rather than an objective analysis of clarity and tone. |