AI seems like a cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking AI for sources is really the worst use for it- AI does best when you load in a document and ask for a summary, talking points, etc.

It’s also great for first drafts of things that don’t matter that much, like an email.

I’ve also loaded standard operating procedures and asked for improvements or automations I can make in processes.

I’ve also used it to grab code to automate some current processes- something that I really did not have time to figure out before- it’s amazing, but it’s a tool, and you have to know how to use it properly.

I can see your point. At the same time, AI adds errors and mistakes. Checking for its mistakes takes as much time, or longer, than just doing the work myself from the start.

Not really? I’ve found high accuracy if I ask AI to summarize a document. It’s recognizing patterns in text at that point, not trying to generate answers. It saves an enormous amount of time. I can ask it to draft out a memo and it basically works as an outline that I can fill in and elaborate on.

It’s a tool, it’s not magical, and you have to know how to use it. You can’t treat it like voodoo or be overly reliant on it. The more you understand how it works, the more powerful it becomes for you.

Anyone who thinks AI is 1) actually AI and 2) a powerful tool is far too stupid to reliably check its output for accuracy.

I appreciate the concern! Luckily, some of us have mastered the delicate art of using tools and critical thinking. It’s a niche skill set, I know.

You can’t even write your own memos, dummy.

You sound like a man who just discovered spellcheck and took it personally.

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?

Yes, because before spellcheck, humanity was a flawless symphony of intellectual rigor, and no one ever confused ‘lead’ with ‘led.’ Tragic how technology robbed you of the utopia you clearly remember from your imagination.

[Anonymous]

I thought AI was useless too until I actually started using it. It has helped me clean up my resume, get jobs, make dinners, write stories I've kept in my head for years. It's absolutely fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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!

NP. This above material annoys me because I come to DCUM to hear from real people. I also rarely read review summaries on Amazon and the AI summaries on Google searches aren't worth damaging the environment to produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

I care because the widespread use of AI is BAD for ALL OF US you moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are using it for work tasks like emails and reports with some success, is there a program who like best? I think it’s a tool that I agree will probably separate the employee from the unemployed pretty soon. People have to be able to work quickly and efficiently. Of course they also have to be smart enough to edit/revise what AI gives them! But all the naysayers here sound, I don’t know, old! Thanks…

Jesus Christ, look at the quality of your own writing. Do we really think this person is capable of determining the quality of outputs from ChatGPT? It’s the blind leading the blind here, and we’re all going to be worse off.

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."

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.

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.

And since you’re an idiot I’ll bet you didn’t notice that your ChatGPT critique contradicts itself several times.

[Anonymous]

Notice the people blasting the use of AI at work are relying on Luddite standbys: insults and “this is bad for everyone.”

AI is not going anywhere just because you don’t like it. It’s already integrated in virtually every computer function. The suggested words in your phone while you type? AI. The suggested responses from teams and outlook in your work emails? AI.

If you are not using AI as a tool to improve your work processes, you are already behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are using it for work tasks like emails and reports with some success, is there a program who like best? I think it’s a tool that I agree will probably separate the employee from the unemployed pretty soon. People have to be able to work quickly and efficiently. Of course they also have to be smart enough to edit/revise what AI gives them! But all the naysayers here sound, I don’t know, old! Thanks…

Jesus Christ, look at the quality of your own writing. Do we really think this person is capable of determining the quality of outputs from ChatGPT? It’s the blind leading the blind here, and we’re all going to be worse off.

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."

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.

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.

And since you’re an idiot I’ll bet you didn’t notice that your ChatGPT critique contradicts itself several times.

How so?

[Anonymous]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-married-ai-robot-claims-011823744.html

I’m sure many posters on this thread don’t see any sort of issue with this dystopian weirdness. I can’t wait for an AI relationships forum on DCUM. There are already people using it as a therapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

I care because the widespread use of AI is BAD for ALL OF US you moron.

Well my actual experience with AI is that it's just a more sophisticated and useful version of a search engine. Do you think widespread use of search engines is BAD for ALL OF US? Before AI, I used various search engines all the time for work (and still do). I knew that sometimes the results could be unreliable, and knew how to check sources and verify information. I continue to have these skills when I use an AI chatbot, but I appreciate the advantages of the chatbot over a traditional search engine.

What exactly is the problem with AI that makes it so much worse than search engines? Or, for that matter, a computer keyboard that allows me to write without my hand constantly cramping or having to use tons of paper to handwrite or write on a typewriter? Am I supposed to reject the internet as a concept? Without it, you couldn't come on here and call me a moron. Think what a loss that would be for us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are using it for work tasks like emails and reports with some success, is there a program who like best? I think it’s a tool that I agree will probably separate the employee from the unemployed pretty soon. People have to be able to work quickly and efficiently. Of course they also have to be smart enough to edit/revise what AI gives them! But all the naysayers here sound, I don’t know, old! Thanks…

I use ChatGPT for 80% of tasks. Great for things like emails.

If you need better writing, Claude tends to be a little better.

Thanks. And I am thumb typing with a bandaid/ hence the bad writing!

There is a thing called "voice to text" these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-married-ai-robot-claims-011823744.html

I’m sure many posters on this thread don’t see any sort of issue with this dystopian weirdness. I can’t wait for an AI relationships forum on DCUM. There are already people using it as a therapist.

I totally us it as mental health coach and find it a lot more helpful for breaking my ruminative thought patterns and process emotions.

The alternative is another dystopian technology…psychotropic medications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are using it for work tasks like emails and reports with some success, is there a program who like best? I think it’s a tool that I agree will probably separate the employee from the unemployed pretty soon. People have to be able to work quickly and efficiently. Of course they also have to be smart enough to edit/revise what AI gives them! But all the naysayers here sound, I don’t know, old! Thanks…

Jesus Christ, look at the quality of your own writing. Do we really think this person is capable of determining the quality of outputs from ChatGPT? It’s the blind leading the blind here, and we’re all going to be worse off.

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."

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.

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.

And since you’re an idiot I’ll bet you didn’t notice that your ChatGPT critique contradicts itself several times.

How so?

Why don’t you ask it?

(Also, train your model yourself.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-married-ai-robot-claims-011823744.html

I’m sure many posters on this thread don’t see any sort of issue with this dystopian weirdness. I can’t wait for an AI relationships forum on DCUM. There are already people using it as a therapist.

I like using AI for research but I think having relationships with AI is weird.

It's actually not that hard to draw these lines, and I think a lot of us would also support a legal framework that would draw some of these lines more clearly.

But the idea that ALL uses of AI are evil because a handful of people are using it in creepy, inappropriate ways seems pretty severe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Notice the people blasting the use of AI at work are relying on Luddite standbys: insults and “this is bad for everyone.”

AI is not going anywhere just because you don’t like it. It’s already integrated in virtually every computer function. The suggested words in your phone while you type? AI. The suggested responses from teams and outlook in your work emails? AI.

If you are not using AI as a tool to improve your work processes, you are already behind.

Samsung's phone spellchecker is garbage. I turned it off for a year. Finally turned it back on and it keeps changing my "big words" into the wrong thing when I'm not supervising it.

Like yesterday it changed "politicians and electability" into "politicians and electricity" while I wasn't looking.

The damn system isn't a fast enough learner. You can find complaints on the web about it.

I hate those automatic responses in Putlook and Teams. They sound fake. People know when youvare using them. Please note the spelling errors in this paragraph thar my spellchecker didn't catch. I see them but the spellchecker didn't resolve them.

Waiting for you to tell me it's because my phone is not Apple. I'm currently using our desktop Mac and Pages to annotate some genealogy info in Latin. The spellchecker is going nuts on last names and Latin words and making it really hard to work.

What's crazy about these programs is how people believe they are a great substitute for quality work and internalized knowledge. Suggested responses featureS are garbage. Everyone knows those are fake. They are as tacky as signing your e-mails "k thanx bye". You don't even need to acknowledge an e-mail if you're going to send something that meaningless. Lol, I've accidentally autotriggered that suggestions feature in chat a couple of times and it comes off as profoundly weird.

[Anonymous]

Unpopular take which I hope is true: AI is a bubble and will be laughed at in a decade. It does have uses, but people will increasingly see anything it touches as tainted. Involved parents already see the danger and are banning its use by kids. Successful kids will wean themselves from it, and write and do math without, standing out even more from the masses. Our whole family is staying away, not because we are luddite, but because we think it will ruin our happiness and future success.