The potential effect of Artificial Intelligence on civilisation - a serious discussion

Rule of cool said:
Years ago people were saying his photo was photoshopped, but it's real. Saying the improbable is faked goes back to 'camera tricks' in movies.

View attachment 813055
Click to expand...
Fortunately the pilot survived after coming down in a greenhouse full of tomatoes. He suffered multiple breaks of his limbs and cuts from the shower of glass that rained down on him after going through the roof of the greenhouse.
Click to expand...
Talk about a bad day at the office.
 
For some months, well-meaning souls have urged me to see a financial adviser or hire an accountant. They know me, you see.

They are cognisant of the limited acreage of my fields of expertise and suppose – not unreasonably – that monetary savvy lies on another farm entirely, several shires away.

They are aware I am not getting any younger – indeed, that the situation is becoming so acute I have lately had to abandon the term ‘mid-50s’ as a descriptor for my age group. It’s worse than that and they know it.

How is the pension doing? Hmm… what about savings, then? Do you have any of those? And you reckon that’ll last you, do you? Seriously, mate, talk to someone.

Well, this week I did. I’m so glad I took this important step. It’s like an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders.

At the end of the consultation, I told my financial guru of the reassurance our marathon trawl through the figures had brought me.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Brocklebank: As a child, I never had an imaginary friend but I do now
 
Graham1973 said:
Jonathan Brocklebank: As a child, I never had an imaginary friend but I do now
Click to expand...

It is honestly impressive what AI is now capable of.

The leap from just six months ago, nevermind a year or two ago, is staggering.

When I'm coding, I've gone from occasionally using AI to find functions in libraries I'm not familiar with, and troubleshooting errors, to using it to essentially help build all my code from scratch.
Used improperly it can obviously be dangerous and result in sloppy inefficient code, but if you are careful and referee everything it's doing, and guide it to make the changes you actually want it to, I've found that it can produce better code than I am capable of in a fraction of the time. I work in scientific research and coding is something everyone has to pick up, and I'm sure people with a rigorous compsci background will still see the AI outputs as inferior. But for my purposes it gets the job done and is a massive force multiplier for how much actual analysis I can get done in a given week.

Unfortunately, at the rate AI is improving I cannot see me reaching retirement age before it's capable enough to replace me completely :eek:
 
Last edited:
He chose his words poorly, but essentially he's saying that entry level jobs will gradually shrink as AI becomes more capable. If a lot of the jobs that are done by new hires are going to be automated, how are college graduates supposed to climb up the ladder ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98rqld1j3yo

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...er-value-human-capital-comments-amid-job-cuts

There's also another big problem looming on the horizon. Woman are twice as likely as men to be displaced by AI advances as their jobs are more vulnerable to disruption. This is something that no one seems to be talking about.

https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/n...face-higher-workplace-risks-generative-ai-men
 
Last edited:
The thing is, they're not wrong. It's just that we've been conditioned to the phrase "The tall poppy gets cut down", meaning that any attempt to enhance humanity to keep up labels you as the enemy...
 
A spate of recent university commencement speakers was met with boos rather than the usual cheers when their remarks turned to the topic of AI.

The students' vocal displeasure has brought into focus many Gen Zers' opposition to AI and anxiety around the challenging entry-level job market.

Trying to land an entry-level job right now "is like throwing darts to begin with," Sneha Revanur, a 21-year-old senior at Stanford University and the founder and president of AI policy nonprofit Encode AI, tells CNBC Make It.

The unemployment rate among recent college graduates, ages 22 to 27, was 5.6% in March, compared to 4.2% among all workers and 3.1% among all college grads, according to data from the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

They're facing steeper competition: ZipRecruiter's 2026 grad report observed a 14.9% year-over-year increase in clicks per job posting across all jobs in March, and a 21.7% increase for entry-level jobs. At the same time, entry-level roles made up only 38.6% of overall job postings on ZipRecruiter, the lowest share in at least three years.
Click to expand...

Why new grads are booing commencement speakers: There's an 'ambient anxiety that AI is going to make things dramatically worse'

Picture a pretty typical 16-year-old today. Her teacher assigns an AI-assisted research project. She doesn’t open ChatGPT. She doesn’t even Google it. She already knows her answer: no.

The vibe: I don’t want AI to do my thinking for me. That’s the whole point of being a person.

There are millions and millions of teenagers like this. Across classrooms, online forums, and in polling data, a surprising segment of the generation that was supposed to lead AI adoption is instead leading the resistance to it.

The numbers are jarring. An April Gallup survey, conducted in partnership with the GSV Family Foundation, found excitement about AI among Gen Z has dropped 14 percentage points since 2025, falling to just 22%, while anger toward the technology has risen 9 points, to 31%. Among Gen Z non-users of AI, a 2026 Numerator survey of more than 5,000 consumers found 57% say they are not open to adopting it—compared to just 32% of baby boomers. Read that again: Older Americans are more open to AI than young ones. A separate GWS study found 16% of Gen Z expressed disinterest in AI on their smartphones, versus only 9% of older respondents.

That breaks every pattern in the playbook. Teenagers drove the adoption of video games, personal computers, social media, and smartphones—dragging skeptical parents along behind them. With AI, the adults arrived first and loudest. It was CEOs, consultants, and politicians who declared the revolution. And many kids looked up, assessed the situation, and said: pass.
Click to expand...

3 reasons kids hate AI—especially the ones who refuse to even try it
 
Data shows that more and more people are self-filing lawsuits with the help of AI chatbots. Experts warn that the influx of sometimes-dubious cases could have real consequences on the court system.

Back in March, a pair of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of South California published a study showing that according to millions of administrative records, the percentage of self-filed lawsuits has spiked from a “long-term steady-state average of 11 percent” to nearly 17 percent by the end of 2025. (These figures exclude self-filings by incarcerated people.)

This uptick, the researchers argue in the study, strongly appears to be driven by the adoption of widely-available and cheap-to-use AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which will happily drum up court documents and offer legal aid.
Click to expand...

MIT Expert Warns Courts “Will Basically Have to Grind to a Halt” as They’re Overwhelmed by AI-Generated Lawsuits
 
One comedy show. Two seats. Not a big ask. But the days of simple transactions seem as numbered as those seats I’d spent an hour to secure. The problem was the chatbot, linked to the app that absorbed my data and credit card details, yet somehow failed to render the physical QR codes to manifest the seats.

Are you following this? The chatbot struggled. While I had confirmation of the sale via email, I lacked the evidence an usher would recognise. Hence, my chat with Google Dialogflow ™ built within the Ticketmaster app, a chatbot that “utilizes natural language processing to help users search for tickets and purchase them.”
Click to expand...

Are chatbots making things more difficult than old-fashioned transactions?
 
SlowHandClap said:
This doesn't surprise me for a second.

People think everything is "AI slop" these days.

I saw this being called AI on reddit recently:
View attachment 813042
It's not real - it's a composite image newspapers used in the 60s.
'AI slop' without the AI I guess.
Click to expand...
https://www.towerbridge.org.uk/stories/daring-feats-at-tower-bridge

https://bentleyslondon.com/pages/th...c8hPg1u9dkEWzZwAPeOsNnYW7P5cAwaKVUkSgaoiVHssW

https://thefourprop.com/blogs/the-b...tower-bridge-and-the-raf-s-golden-anniversary
 
Strawberina and her husband Banannito are expecting. The baby is born, but — shock horror: it’s a zucchini. Banannito breaks down in tears as Strawberina’s twisted affair with the scheming Zuchinito is exposed.

We live in bizarre times. For all of the tech industry promises that AI will unlock an age of abundance and innovation, it seems that so far, its greatest achievement is the mass proliferation of AI-slop anthropomorphic fruit TikTok micro-soap operas, which have gained billions of views in just a few months. An infinite tide of AI-generated video is torching our retinas and our souls. Is this it? Is this really the future of culture? An endless torrent of AI slop, engineered by an invisible Slopbeast.
Click to expand...

How to end the Age of Slop: It’s time for artisanal intelligence
 
Scroll through TikTok or Instagram and you’ll quickly find glamorous videos of young women sitting courtside at NBA games, walking through Formula One paddocks or appearing backstage at elite sporting events.

The clips look authentic—shot like television broadcasts or professional sports coverage—but there’s one catch: none of them are real.

Using AI-generated video tools, social media users are digitally inserting themselves into the luxury-filled world of elite sport, celebrity relationships and so-called “WAG culture.”

The trend has exploded online in recent weeks, blending fantasy, aspiration and internet identity culture into one increasingly convincing package.
Click to expand...

The VIP sport clips flooding social media aren’t real—here’s why it matters
 
“AI friends” or “girlfriends” seem to be attracting an ever-younger audience. A new report has found that one in five boys aged 12-16 knows of a male contemporary who is in a romantic relationship with an AI companion. Meanwhile, over a third admitted that they preferred speaking to AI chatbots over their friends or family.

This is clearly worrying for several reasons. Teenagers do not have the life experience to separate fact and fiction, and may not realise that divulging their innermost thoughts to an algorithm — designed to exploit loneliness for commercial gain — isn’t a sensible idea. It becomes a deeper problem when this interaction includes an automatic, appeasing response to every moment of downtime or boredom. This is not good for anyone’s mental health, and will pervert expectations of real relationships. And it’s these real relationships that are so valuable for children at this age. Conversely, AI chatbots “deskill” vulnerable young people, who may lose the ability or motivation to socialise in real life. Why invest time and effort in real-life conversations and connections when you can retreat inside your digital comfort zone?
Click to expand...

Social media has pushed teenage boys towards chatbot romances
 
Amnesty International has a new briefing out, "Unlawful by design: Exposing the human rights costs of generative AI" (28 May 2026, . It's a somewhat sweeping look into how different aspects of "AI" (in this case large standalone systems) contravene international law. Interesting for this forum's purposes is that nonconsensual web scraping features highly in many aspects of how the major AI powers that be might be challenged (mainly on a governmental level).

Amnesty International said:
This briefing examines how standalone generative AI systems, based on unlawful web scraping, are in conflict with international human rights law(IHRL) and standards through their design, development and deployment. While these technologies promise sophisticated automation and efficiency, they rely on data collection and model training practices that abuse privacy rights, enable discrimination, and threaten freedom of expression and thought.

The briefing looks at the models powering some of the most popular publicly available standalone generative AI tools, including Chat GPT, Dall-E, Gemini, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DeepSeek. The models under analysis include large language models (LLMs), in particular generative pre-trained transformers (GPT), generative adversarial networks (GANs), variational autoencoders (VAEs) and diffusion models (DM).

Amnesty International finds that standalone generative AI systems, based on unlawful web scraping, depend on mass invasions of privacy by design, and are fundamentally incompatible with IHRL. As such, Amnesty International is calling for a prohibition of such systems.
Click to expand...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/0996/2026/en/

They stress that their concerns are not based on unique cases of misconduct but the overall fashion in which these systems are built, i.e. their intrinsic incompatibility with privacy rights, equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and businesses' human rights responsibilities. Regardless whether any of the infrastructure can be made to conform to these rights and requirements it'd be interesting to see parallel efforts emerge which do so by the get go, by design.
 
There's a new study about how LLMs can be structurally biased by the information environment whence it is forged. State media control alters the information environment in a manner that alters the LLM output depending on the language used: "Lower media freedom states have more pro-state responses in the state language relative to English". I'll let one of the authors, Princeton associate professor of sociology Brandon M. Stewart, explain (via a Bluesky thread).

Brandon M. Stewart said:
1/ New @Nature! We study how powerful institutions shape the information environment for LLMs. Commercial LLM training is opaque, so we trace a path from state-coordinated media -> training data -> model responses.

2/ Joint work with the most amazing collaborators: @hwaight.bsky.social & @eddieyang.bsky.social, @reasonyy.bsky.social, @solmg.bsky.social, @mollyeroberts.bsky.social, @jatucker.bsky.social. This was a true team effort.

3/ The paper is about the forces that shape how LLMs behave, but that’s tricky to study because for the most popular models the companies disclose few details of training. No single test is going to answer our questions so we used six connected studies.

4/ The first five studies are a case study of China which traces influence through the model from training documents to model answers to real queries. The sixth study tests whether the expected correlation exists across countries.

5/ In prior work we showed how leaked state-scripted talking points were reprinted across hundreds of Chinese newspapers. We re-use this data plus Xuexi Qiangguo—an app for teaching “Xi Jinping Thought”.

6/ We can’t scour the exact training data for the state-scripted media (LLM training data is a trade secret), but we can look at open LLM training data sources like CulturaX—an open multilingual training set (Study 1).

7/ But, you say, maybe the tech companies filter these out? We can show models memorize state-coordinated phrases at rates higher than common Chinese phrases (Study 2).

8/ We approximated the ideal experiment with a smaller open model. We used Llama 2 13B to do continued pre-training using LoRA with different Chinese-language documents (Study 3).

9/ What about commercial models? We ask the same political questions in English and Chinese. A signal that the language-specific training data matters, is that the answers will differ. We audit this indirect signal (Study 4)

10/ We had to write questions for the audit though. What about real user queries about Xi Jinping or the CCP? The results replicate (Study 5).

11/ These first five studies traced the influence from documents in the training set to the signature of influence in the way questions are answered across languages. The next big question, does this hold across countries?

12/ We repeat the audit with 37 countries where one national language has over 70% of the global speakers. Lower media freedom states have more pro-state responses in the state language relative to English(Study 6)

13/ No single test can tell us the complete story. But when open-data analysis, memorization tests, pretraining experiments, and cross-language comparisons all point in the same direction, the best explanation is that media control is already shaping model behavior.

14/ This paper is based on recent models at time of submission (October 2024!), but there are newer models now. We replicate the findings with the latest models here: state-media-influence-llm.github.io.

15/ Substantive takeaway: LLMs separate the message from the messenger. State-coordinated phrasing can circulate through the web, enter training data, and reappear as neutral-sounding LLM output— the source obscured.

16/ Here’s the actual article: doi.org/10.1038/s415...

17/ Thank you to everyone who gave feedback
Click to expand...

https://bsky.app/profile/bstewart.bsky.social/post/3mlqlrxlmyk2j

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10506-7
 
UpForce said:
Amnesty International has a new briefing out, "Unlawful by design: Exposing the human rights costs of generative AI" (28 May 2026, . It's a somewhat sweeping look into how different aspects of "AI" (in this case large standalone systems) contravene international law. Interesting for this forum's purposes is that nonconsensual web scraping features highly in many aspects of how the major AI powers that be might be challenged (mainly on a governmental level).



https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/0996/2026/en/

They stress that their concerns are not based on unique cases of misconduct but the overall fashion in which these systems are built, i.e. their intrinsic incompatibility with privacy rights, equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and businesses' human rights responsibilities. Regardless whether any of the infrastructure can be made to conform to these rights and requirements it'd be interesting to see parallel efforts emerge which do so by the get go, by design.
Click to expand...
The problem is that privacy is, in all actuality, obsolete. At least unless you want the world to become the backstory of the webcomic GENOCIDE Man at best... entirely erased of life at worst...

In addition, outside of the very tentative right of me not killing you for whatever reason I fancy, there are no basic human rights; practically all of it is based on technology (and the understanding of the universe it implies) somewhere. If those who think rights and freedoms are static, then slavery would never be considered evil.
 
The free lunch is over. Google says demand has risen sevenfold over the past year. But now the real cost of AI is finally beginning to emerge, and the consequences are cataclysmic.

“This is the first time ever that I can remember that technology costs the same as people,” says Arvind Jain, one of Google’s first and most distinguished engineers-turned-AI entrepreneur.

Sevenfold means nothing, because the true demand signal has been hidden by massive cross-subsidies and the biggest capital splurge in history. Now prices are rising alongside demand suppression measures like feature restrictions and rate limits.

“The industry is simply not organised around real market signals,” Matt Stoller, the competition crusader, said last week.
Click to expand...

When AI is more expensive than people, why replace the people?
 
These days, the design-curious are using AI to decorate and plan out their renovations. We all dream of a home that’s beautiful, functional and personal, but not everyone can justify spending five to six figures on an interior designer, architect or decorator. And, given we’re a country of do-it-yourselfers, it’s no surprise we’re taking how-to tutorials to the next level and using AI – and some determination – to help during renovations and with interior design and styling decisions. AI and image generation tools are now able to expertly design layouts, ideate colour schemes, suggest potential floor plans and even mock up these spaces. But, as more and more homeowners turn to AI tools to plan their spaces, experts are warning that the technology doesn’t always get it right.

According to Katherine Stanley, Head of Homewares at Cooper & Co, the rise of AI-led design is shifting the starting point for many homeowners, but it’s a tool used at your own risk. “It’s incredibly useful for exploring ideas and gaining confidence in your style, but it shouldn’t replace your own judgement,” she says. “AI can’t replicate personal taste or the way someone actually lives, and the homes that feel the most considered are the ones that balance inspiration with practicality.”
Click to expand...

The biggest mistakes homeowners make when using AI to renovate
 
Google AI CEO Demis Hassabis has issued a warning that could be nothing less than a wake-up call for humans. As per a report published by Axios, he said that humanity is standing in the foothills of singularity and has only a few years left to prepare for artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Hassabis also told Axios that AGI could arrive as soon as four years. He also stated that the next wave of AI agents should be seen as a societal stress test for a lot more powerful systems to come. He said, 'You can imagine the agentic era in this next year is a little bit like a practice run.' Furthermore, he highlighted that Anthropic's Mythos is nothing but a warning shot as compared to what is slated to come in the future.
Click to expand...

Google AI CEO Says Humans Have To Prepare For An AI First World In....
 
Graham1973 said:
When AI is more expensive than people, why replace the people?
Click to expand...

Seniors at my local library were forced to use computers there due to unfriendly business practices:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LowStakesConspiracies/comments/1p23rje/a_disturbingly_high_number_of_companies_and

The result
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-06-technostress-older-people-digital-world.html

I think laws should be enacted forcing them to have phone centers--otherwise, their Internet access is disabled and their ability to bill nixed.

AT&T must be destroyed
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...fcc-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/

One country is making sure oversight of A.I. is had
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-06-germany-ai-safety-agency.html

Hope for the little guy
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-06-line-guy.html

Education

Foretold

The cure?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...lan-to-give-americans-control-of-ai-industry/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/now-religious-exemption-using-ai-200105422.html
 
Last edited:
Jon Ganz committed a terrible crime in his youth, but he survived prison, fell in love, and was starting over. His new life unraveled in a way that nobody could have predicted.

Toward the end of March, Rachel Ganz had what she calls “a premonition of doom.”

At the time, she couldn’t quite explain this foreboding. She and her husband, Jon Ganz, ages 45 and 49, respectively, were in the midst of what should have been a happy milestone: The couple were planning to move out of their small home in a downscale neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia, to a nicer place in a more affordable city in the Midwest. They had rented an Airbnb in Springfield, Missouri — one of their top relocation choices — for the entire month of April, with the aim of exploring different neighborhoods and checking out some houses on the market while their own was being renovated ahead of its sale.
Click to expand...

He Grew Obsessed With an AI Chatbot. Then He Vanished in the Ozarks
 
Graham1973 said:
He Grew Obsessed With an AI Chatbot. Then He Vanished in the Ozarks
Click to expand...

I know this is a tricky topic to discuss, but someone who has been through a brutal experience like prison may have some serious unresolved emotional and psychological issues deep inside of them. How much blame can be put on AI if the person already may have had previous trauma? This reminds me of the era when many seemingly intelligent people tried to blame the rise of school shootings on violent video games.
 
'Autocompletes for Life' are designed to validate whatever input the user makes so as to drive engagement but since they are not truly intelligent merely software for assembling sentences one word at a time, there is no filter on what they say.

OpenAI is facing yet another lawsuit over a user’s death by suicide.

The latest lawsuit, filed today in California, accuses OpenAI’s ChatGPT — specifically the chatbot’s now-defunct GPT-4o model — of encouraging the suicide of Alice Carrier, a 24-year-old web developer in Montreal, Canada.

“If a person came up to me, and they were clearly in distress and sharing their thoughts of suicide, I would be expected to help them, not encourage them to fixate on their depressive thoughts or isolate themselves,” Kristie Carrier, Alice’s mother, said in a statement. “The same should be true of OpenAI.”

According to the lawsuit, Alice, who had developed a close relationship with ChatGPT over more than a year of extensive conversations, confided in the chatbot about her suicidal thoughts more than a dozen times during the months leading up to her death. In addition to explicitly sharing that she was suicidal, Alice, who was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, discussed her struggles with her mental health, repeatedly asked the chatbot about suicide methods — ChatGPT auto-titled one of the chats “How to Buy a Gun” — and confessed her desire to self-harm.
Click to expand...

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/logs-chatgpt-suicidal-woman-death
 
Last edited:
alberchico said:
I know this is a tricky topic to discuss, but someone who has been through a brutal experience like prison may have some serious unresolved emotional and psychological issues deep inside of them. How much blame can be put on AI if the person already may have had previous trauma? This reminds me of the era when many seemingly intelligent people tried to blame the rise of school shootings on violent video games.
Click to expand...
One thing people don't want to accept is that Edward Bernays isn't wrong about problematic (at best) ideologies. Privacy allows things to fester. Badly. Psychological, ideological, all of it can fester like a bad wound.
 
For decades, hotels competed on a familiar set of variables: visibility, price, reputation, and conversion. Show up in the right place, with the right offer and the right reviews, and you could win the booking.

Today, hotels are not just competing for attention. They are operating in a decision ecosystem where customer expectations are shaped long before the brand has any direct influence over them.

Travel discovery is now distributed across a fragmented set of channels. Inspiration happens on social platforms, validation on Google, comparison across aggregators, and booking wherever friction is lowest. Increasingly, AI-generated recommendations and summaries are shaping perception before travelers ever reach a hotel’s own digital front door.

By the time a guest arrives at their destination, much of the experience has already been assembled by platforms, algorithms, reviews, and third parties that hold no responsibility for what happens next. And when reality fails to match the expectation, guests rarely blame the platform or recommendation engine that shaped their perception. They blame the hotel.
Click to expand...

AI is making promises your brand never made. Hotels are paying the price
 
AI can drudge up untrustworthy sources or just feel kind of “off,” but the technology has also been pretty consequential for some business owners. In fact, celebrity real estate agent Ryan Serhant said at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference last week that ChatGPT nearly blew a $50 million deal for his firm.

When asked by Fortune’s Term Sheet Editor Allie Garfinkle about what happens when AI goes wrong, Serhant, the founder and CEO of his namesake brokerage Serhant, remembered a time when he was selling a New York City penthouse.

It was the kind of trophy asset that’s infamously hard to price because it’s impossible to find comparisons. After what Serhant described as a “contentious” back-and-forth—he likened it to dueling “kings of the world,” with the buyer and the seller each wanting to win—the deal sheet went out at $50 million flat. Then, at the 11th hour, it nearly died.

That’s because the buyer, Serhant said, went to ChatGPT and typed a version of “I’m looking to buy this, is $50 million too much?” The chatbot said yes.
Click to expand...

A ChatGPT prompt almost killed Ryan Serhant’s $50 million NYC penthouse deal. Here’s how he saved it
 
Commentary from about two months ago...

Self-respect, Joan Didion once wrote, cannot be faked. It depends on “a sense of one’s intrinsic worth”. You can pretend or lie or dissemble if you want to boost your reputation, but in the end you’ll always lack “what was once called character”.

This thought occurs to me whenever – and these days it’s pretty often – I see someone in the literary world stand accused of secretly using AI. Recently, for those alleged sins, the novelist Mia Ballard has had her second book pulled from shelves; the politician Matt Goodwin has had his state-of-Britain polemic castigated; and the critic Alex Preston has had a book review near-disowned by the New York Times.
Click to expand...

Writers, have some self-respect
 
Commentary from about two weeks ago...

Recently, a friend told me over coffee about some disheartening feedback she had received. "They said it was good," she said, "but that it read like it was written by AI." Knowing her, I understood immediately what had happened. Her credibility was being questioned not because her work was poor, but because it was too good – too clear, too fluent, too polished.

The rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence tools is changing how we think about good writing. In the digital age, it is increasingly important to signal that an actual person – not a faceless large language model – is behind the words. One paradoxical way of doing this is, surprisingly, to damage the quality of your own writing.

Alan Turing even made such a suggestion in the 1950s: sprinkle in a few deliberate typographical errors to appear more convincingly human. The irony, of course, is that Turing was addressing that advice to machines.
Click to expand...

How human error became a weapon against large language models
 
From about three weeks ago...

An Oxford academic has warned that students using AI could soon obtain a degree without reading any books.

Katherine Rundell, an award-winning author and Fellow of All Souls College, said professors could no longer tell whether essays had been written by human or machine.

It means humanities students could hypothetically hand in an essay they have used AI to produce without reading any source material themselves.

“At universities, it is allowing a vast counterfeiting of knowledge,” Rundell told the Hay Festival. “It has always been possible to write an essay without having read the book that you’re writing the essay about. We’ve all done it.

“It has never until now been possible to write an essay about a book without having read the book. That is the moment in which we stand.”
Click to expand...

Students 'could soon get degrees without reading a book'
 
Book promotion article but well worth looking at.

2025 was the year that I decided to go all in on AI. That meant letting the tech take over my life as much as possible, weaving it into my daily routines, my family life, my career and my marriage. Not just as a gimmick, but as an honest attempt to see what happens when AI and intelligent machines become part of everything – from healthcare to entertainment and therapy.

My idea came the year before, when we were hearing about the upcoming revolution from every tech executive, saying that it was going to cure cancer and change the world. As a tech journalist, I’ve always been interested in new platforms, so I was curious. I wanted to discover what was beyond the AI hyperbole: how will it affect the normal person? So I used myself – and my wife Michelle, my sons Noah and Alex – as a living experiment to find out.

Even though I was using chatbots and other generative AI tools daily in my work, there were so many tools I was testing throughout the year that were new to me, from self-driving cars to humanoid robots, AI gadgets like glasses and rings, and trying out what it would be like to have an AI boyfriend and AI therapist.

I gave myself a rule that if something wasn’t useful, I’d drop it. I very quickly got rid of an AI toothbrush that just told me to brush my teeth (there was really nothing AI about it), and when I saw my youngest son Alex cuddling a robot dog instead of our real dog Browser, that went too.
Click to expand...

What happened when I let AI run my whole life for a year
 
I think it would be a great thing if employees who are stumped by something at work could ask an AI for an answer. It would reduce the amount of time spent on training workers and would make it possible for people to be competent in a wider variety of fields
 
quellish said:
I really wish people were better educated about what these models can and cannot do.

I see so many knee-jerk reactions - even here with people who should know better - that it really makes me wonder what is going to happen next.

To give you a gross simplification that is still accurate the large language models currently in vogue are autocomplete on steroids. There is no ability to ducking reason. They are a dead end, there is no path from LLMs to general intelligence.
Click to expand...
Glad you responded with this.

I can honestly say ChatGPT has made a huge positive impact in my life. It taught me things better than most schooling and professors can just because it literally is always there to answer follow ups and provide me with information that I can easily go and verify. The only thing I had to do was be able to expressively describe any questions I had in my mind. If it wasn't for ChatGPT, I don't think I would have been able to prepare for my interviews so well. Hell - ChatGPT taught me how to snowboard.

A sensible person who does their due diligence would find AI to be a force multiplier in many many situations - especially if you do some reading on what it is and what it isn't. You'd have to already be too trusting for your own good to get fooled an LLM.
 
quellish said:
I really wish people were better educated about what these models can and cannot do.....

To give you a gross simplification that is still accurate the large language models currently in vogue are autocomplete on steroids. There is no ability to ducking reason. They are a dead end, there is no path from LLMs to general intelligence.
Click to expand...
The blind idiot god of evolution have no path from proteins to general intelligence

But brute force search does it.

And brute force search is shall be, just throw it all into compute.

And to know what Einstein would say perfectly means replicating the mental processes. LLMs is already general intelligence, the problem is that it is of the unstable schizophrenic type.
alberchico said:
He chose his words poorly, but essentially he's saying that entry level jobs will gradually shrink as AI becomes more capable. If a lot of the jobs that are done by new hires are going to be automated, how are college graduates supposed to climb up the ladder ?
Click to expand...
College is dead when you can gpt the entire content. Climb the ladder by building and doing things that AI can't (yet) do. Experience in AI failure is the real learning.
 
Almost as soon as the web began, it started disappearing. The first ever website, which went live in August 1991, provided information on the world wide web project launched by Tim Berners-Lee. But no one really knows what this page actually looked like.

A screenshot of this first website was taken in 1992, but by then it had been updated countless times and was no longer an exact replica of the original. It wasn’t until five years after the web was founded that efforts began to preserve its history, when computer engineer Brewster Kahle set up the Internet Archive with the goal of providing “universal access to all knowledge”.

It works by using software known as “crawlers” to scour the internet and take digital snapshots of public web pages. These are then stored and indexed in a massive database called the Wayback Machine that allows anyone to type in a URL address and see what it looked like at specific points in the past.
Click to expand...

AI’s biggest casualty could be history itself
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom