Saying knee jerk rejection of new technology is common is pro-ai?If it's such a bad, ill-concieved notion, why don't you explain why it's wrong, instead of just saying that it's used by people you disagree with?
Maybe if an argument is used by both pro and anti AI people, it's less a "pro-ai" argument, and more a "let's keep in mind how often doom and gloom has been wrong and keep our criticism grounded"?
Actually, yes. I know you were making a point, but the study this pile of garbage article referenced actually did comparisons between people using an LLM, people using a search engine, and people using neither.
The study is a lot more reasonable. It basically says using an LLM to write a research paper on a subject makes you retain less of the subject matter.
They specifically mention the cognitive load of using the tool, be it search engine or LLM, and how that load doesn't contribute to knowledge retention.
Their research indicates "over usage" as opposed to "any usage" is bad for learning a subject.
Nah, I don't think we can. You may be okay with hyperbolic lies from an antivax quackery website, but I'm not.
I think our use of LLMs is overblown and rife with issues, but I don't think the answer to that is to wrap your concerns in so much obvious bullshit that anyone who does even a cursory glance will see that it's bunk. All you do is convey "people who think LLMs and generative AI are worrisome are full of shit".
AI is much more affecting
Gee, if only there were some way to find information that validates those claims and be confident that people haven't labeled them grossly incorrectly....
Why are you talking about TV, as an aside? People doing research poorly or ignoring research in the past is irrelevant to if we should lie to people now.
I'm more concerned about degu infestation if I'm being honest. No one knows how to handle them here so it just turns into a whole mess.
The study itself is entirely benign, and I'd actually accept it as a reason to eschew AI in an educational context. Their conclusion is basically "if you use an LLM to write an essay you tend to not retain the information as well", which is... Downright boring in how reasonable it is. Particularly given the converse observation I wouldn't have expected: if you are already familiar with a subject then using an LLM to write an essay can strengthen your understanding.
The "journal" this summary of the study was shared in is quackery, so I'm not surprised they distorted the findings.
The name and presentation of that site has a veneer of legitimacy, but it really doesn't seem credible.
There's also a lot of general antivax stuff.
Now, sharing a lot of ... Questionable articles... Doesn't make the article in question invalid. It does however call into extreme doubt any editorial context the site might be adding.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872
This is the actual study being referenced. It's conclusions are significantly less severe than this presents them as, while still conveying "LLMs are not generally the best tool for facilitating education".
trade-off highlights an important educational concern: AI tools, while valuable for supporting performance, may unintentionally hinder deep cognitive processing, retention, and authentic engagement with written material. If users rely heavily on AI tools, they may achieve superficial fluency but fail to internalize the knowledge or feel a sense of ownership over it.
from an educational standpoint, these results suggest that strategic timing of AI tool introduction following initial self-driven effort may enhance engagement and neural integration. The corresponding EEG markers indicate this may be a more neurocognitively optimal sequence than consistent AI tool usage from the outset
Ultimately, this isn't saying AI tools cause brain damage or make you stupid. It's saying that learning via LLM often causes worse retention of the information being learned. It also says that search engines and LLMs can remove certain types of cognitive load that are not conducive to retention, making learning easier and faster in some cases where engagement can be kept high.
It's important to be clear and honest about what a study is saying, even if it's not as unequivocally negative as the venue might appreciate.
The study appears to be saying something different from what the headline implies.
Basically it might be better to say that using an LLM doesn't require you to think as hard, you remember less of the essay, and when you go back to rewrite a previous essay without the LLM you have more trouble.
They also noted that for some people, using the LLM made them learn much better. Basically the difference between getting it to write for you and using it as a tool to structure information.One reduced cognitive load from all sources, and the other reduced load relating to integrating different information sources.
Basically it was a proper study by people who knew what they were doing. They never actually said anything about rewiring.
Remember: survival of the fittest is statistical, not individual. So the next time you hear someone with kids say something to that effect, reassure them that since they're such "fit" specimens they do actually have a few percent higher chance for their kids to survive the illness compared to the "unfit"
Yup. They already have a history of altering data to fit their narrative. Like, these people in specific, not just Republicans.
Florida: shithole of shitholes.
So you don't actually have any empirical evidence for term limits doing what you say they will, and your dead set on judging people by their age and not their actual capabilities.
You're reducing a person to a number and ignoring their actual personhood. If you think that someone is mentally unfit for office, argue based on them, not their age.Maybe it will make more sense if we replace one characteristic of a person that isn't relevant to the job with another:
The vast majority of the Democratic's higher leadership are Jewish. I like Bernie, but it is clear that Republicans, despite being shit, actually have representation of their Christian cohort and benefit from that vitality.
Religion has as much to do with the job as age.
It typically isn't the older rulers who change the fate of nations in a helpful way. Their idleness, is typically the cause of famine, decay, and disaster, because they simply didn't care or couldn't understand.
Citation needed. Hitler took power at 43. Stalin at 46. Mao at 56. Pol pot at 50. Czar Nicholas II was 50 when he died and took office at 27. Lincoln was 56. Ghandi was most influential in his 70s. FDR was in his 50s. Pretty good spread for leaders I could think of off the top of my head who were notably good or bad. Who were you thinking? "Look at history books" isn't evidence when history books are full of people of all ages doing basically everything.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(24)00140-5/fulltext
the majority of individuals aged 65 years and older are cognitively unimpaired. Age does not equate to cognitive decline and is not a good marker for an individual’s ability to serve in a political role. Although poor performance in younger people might be perceived as a one off, for example due to ill preparation or a poor night’s sleep, in older adults the assumption is all too often that it is due to cognitive decline.
Have you considered that that's just how your parent is, and their age has nothing to do with it?I had aging parents too. One was basically fine until the end, other than arthritis and blood pressure. The other has a host of ailments, and the only mental change was that he got more progressive, since he had more time to read, and he refused to accept that his sense of taste was getting weaker.
You do understand that people are voting for these politicians you want to bar from office, right? Not liking who people choose to represent them is usually best acted upon by voting for someone else, or encouraging someone you like more to run, not by disqualifying the person most people preferred.
You should take a step back and consider why you hold your beliefs. Are they based on feelings about how you think the world is, or should be, or are they based in things that are objectively true? How do you know they're true?
So, ignoring the straight up agism (aging makes people set in their ways. People can only represent people the same age as them, regardless of what those people want. Young people just have more conviction and "audacity"), do you have any evidence for anything you've asserted there, or is it all just based on feels?
https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/term-limits
https://ippsr.msu.edu/public-policy/michigan-wonk-blog/term-limits-what-do-they-do
There's evidence that you're wrong about term limits.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/analysis-pay-legislators-more-for-better-representation/
Same goes for legislative compensation.
You feel like you're pushing to make politicians bring in fresh ideas and drive income higher. In reality those policies select for people who don't need money from a second job and gives them no incentive to represent their constituency once elected.
As for the age thing, you're essentially saying to boot Sanders for JD Vance. He is basically half his age, so he must be more representative of younger people's beliefs, right? I'd rather let voters decide who represents them than tell them who they're allowed to like.
Term limits make it vastly easier for politicians to be captured by special interests. Politicians lose "doing a good job" as a way to have a continued job going forward, making them more susceptible to looking at how their vote will impact their future employment. It also means that even well intentioned representatives don't have time to properly learn how the system works and become effective before they need to leave, making power shift to unelected groups. At best their political party providing knowledgeable staff and legislation to propose, and as is often the case various special interest groups who can work to finance campaigns as well as provide pre-packaged legislation, media campaigns to encourage voters to encourage you to pass it, and assurances of various roles that can provide post political life influence and money.
The way you reduce the influence of interests is to make it so their levers don't work anymore. If politicians get a pension even after being voted out of office a cushy board position is less appealing. If they get paid generously in office there's less incentive to court outside influence, or risk your money by accepting it. If you can keep that going as long as voters like you, you only have incentive to keep voters happy.
Finally, why would you want to say to voters "sorry, this politician consistently provides what you're looking for in a representative so you can't have them anymore. You need to pick someone new who doesn't have any legislative record or experience"?
While that's certainly true, I don't think that doesn't apply to women's clothing as well nor does it change that women's clothing not having pockets is kinda bullshit, even though you can technically add your own after the fact.It would be more of a "yes, but..." Situation if women's clothing that didn't have pockets always fit perfectly and hit all the criteria you mentioned. They have that problem and they don't get pockets.
I'd push back against idiots. It's a little more complicated. It's meticulously cultivated ignorance amongst many people, since that's useful. People with money can help people with power maintain power if they help them make more money. So people with power have an incentive to keep people ignorant about things that threaten the bottom line (often. Some have principles and some see the electorate as a better way to maintain power. Obviously nuance exists)
So it's not that the people who don't support universal healthcare are always unintelligent, or that the leadership is. You're not stupid for not understanding something you've never experienced, and only been told falsehoods about. It's why intelligent people sometimes end up against it, and can jump through pretty significant mental hoops to justify that position: every experience says the belief is correct, and it agrees with what they were taught.
There's a special experience that Americans sometimes get where they'll travel to another country and get sick or injured. Depending on the country, they might be apologetically informed that because they don't pay into the system they'll need to pay full price for the procedure, only to be presented with a bill significantly lower than the fully insured price in the US. Or they just don't get a bill, depending on the country. I've had this happen to two coworkers. One was given a bill for about $200 for a night in the hospital, antivirals, and several units of fluids and electrolytes. The person who presented the bill was adament that there should be a way to bring this down to something more reasonable. In the US that might be a $1000 bill with insurance.Another had their kid break their arm on vacation, and when they tried to figure out how to pay the doctor just looked confused and asked why he thought they would charge to help a child in medical need. Said it made him realize how backwards our system has made everything, even though he already wanted universal healthcare. Seeing a system that actually put patient care first just felt weird.
They are under the impression that what'll happen is that their paycheck will go down by the cost of universal healthcare per person because the costs are taken out via taxes. Then they hear that some people will get it who don't pay taxes and they get indignant that they're paying and someone else is getting. Then they think about the difficulties they have with our current system, and picture putting something like the DMV in front of it, since that's what a lot of people have as their biggest reference for what the government does.
That's all because someone has a vested interest in making sure they understand it wrong, and no one is going to make a lot of money off universal healthcare so there isn't the same degree of motivation to teach people a more accurate understanding."Against" has billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and "for" has "human decency", "efficiency" and "why are we doing this to ourselves".
People hear that your paycheck gets a bit bigger, you go to the doctor when you feel sick, bills are mainly to keep you from going to the doctor for free aspirin and are lower than your copay, and you just ... don't deal with the billing anymore and think that sounds unrealistic. Entirely missing that other countries have done it, that the government already has a medical billing system, and dealing with paperwork is something the government does even better than "moving stuff from one place to another".
While true, it's hardly fair that I, as a man, don't need to learn to sew, buy a sewing machine , spend time getting materials or actually doing the sewing in order to have good pockets. My pants just come with good pockets.
Yeah, you're attacking people who agree with you, but disagree with your notion that we can ignore "reality" in describing why it's a bad idea.
Have fun with that.