Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.
I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.
Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?
Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.
My comment doesn’t suggest people have to run their own research study or develop their own treatise on every topic. It suggests people have make a conscious choice, preferably with reasonable judgment, about which sources to trust and to develop a lay understanding of the argument or conclusion they’re repeating. Otherwise you end up with people on the left and right reflexively saying “communism bad” or “capitalism bad” because their social media environment repeats it a lot, but they’d be hard pressed to give even a loosly representative definition of either.
This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter. And you can use AI and do this, they are not in any way exclusive.
How do? What would your alternative assertion be on the topic?
If you think your comment and this are the same thing, then I don’t know what to say.
Well you didn’t respond to my questions and you’re vaguely referencing our other comments instead. It’s not effective communication and leads me to think you didn’t understand my comments. You seem to be into math, so I’ll put it this way,
Be explicit, show your work: premises–>arguments–>conclusion
Well I first replied to that first comment. Then people started making completely different claims and the point got lost in the sauce.
Edit: why should I take the time to formulate my thoughts well if you have demonstrated that you don’t give even the slightest hint of good faith to understand what I’m saying?
Ah, I haven’t looked at others’ responses. I can see how responding to many different people gets messy.
But to answer your question, because I took the time to formulate my thoughts for you, and I responded directly to things you said in your comments. I also asked you directly “How so? What’s your alternative assertion.” Which was a good faith attempt to better understand what you meant.
Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of
not made in good faith. You don’t engage with the point I’m making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.
Also, hearing “How so? What’s your alternative assertion” after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.
OP: I want people to think for ourselves.
My understanding of your point: People have never done that because no thought is truly independent. Modern complexity relies on thought that builds upon others.
My point: Sure, but that’s also a narrow and ungenerous interpretation of the term “independent thought” as per OP’s usage. It’s closer to critical thought than silo’d thought developed from the ground up.