The AI View From Above
-
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The AI View From Above
-
My concern is that use of GenAI is causing people to not think. Even cell phones cause issues... how many people do not remember a frequently called phone number because it is on their speed dial settings in their phone? There is already a lot of research out there to support the use of AI causing people to loose creativity/intelligence.
Is AI causing a decline in cognitive and creative skills?
Does generative AI make us dumber? A new report warns of dangers
Science shows AI is probably making you dumber. Luckily, there’s a fix
I know my son just came back from his first year in college... we discussed use of AI and he did not know what AI truly was (a set of programmed models, not an independently thinking / cognitive system). There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal recently where the reporter made a similar observation that AI was making him less smart .
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours (Richard Bach, Illusions)
-
I asked AI how I should jump off my deck, and it said "head first".
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) ) - DB_Newbie2007 wrote:
My concern is that use of GenAI is causing people to not think. Even cell phones cause issues... how many people do not remember a frequently called phone number because it is on their speed dial settings in their phone? There is already a lot of research out there to support the use of AI causing people to loose creativity/intelligence.
I know my son just came back from his first year in college... we discussed use of AI and he did not know what AI truly was (a set of programmed models, not an independently thinking / cognitive system). There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal recently where the reporter made a similar observation that AI was making him less smart .
Perhaps. I'd argue the internet and instant search on devices are more of a factor here.
- skeleton567 wrote:
I asked AI how I should jump off my deck, and it said "head first".
Without context, that isn't good or bad. Asking things like that without context isn't helpful. If you asked people, some might say that (jokingly) and some might ask you why.
The technology isn't there as a way to substitute for common sense, but as an aid to help you with creative or knowledge based tasks. It requires context to do so.
-
I'll change if there is evidence or a good argument to do so.
But I haven't seen an AI give references, which really upsets me. If you're stating something as fact, you should be able to prove it, give a reference or two, show your work. DB_Newbie2007 just said:
There is already a lot of research out there to support the use of AI causing people to loose creativity/intelligence.
Yet, didn't provide any references. In his second paragraph, he did provide a link to the Wall Street Journal, which is good.
Why can't AI back up what it says with actual evidence?
The times that I have used AI to try and answer a question, I get back a response and the first thing I do, is a regular Internet search of some of the information the AI responded with. For example, an API method name, if I ask a programming question. But more often than not, the method couldn't be used in the way presented, or worse, flat out didn't even exist!
-
AI does give you references. Like a human, you might need to ask.
In perplexity, I get them at the top?
In Claude, I had to ask:
Same in Copilot, ask.
This really isn't a lot different than working with a junior dev. They might give you an answer (or code) , but you might have to ask them to back up the reasoning.
-
Ah, that's right. I have seen those before.
-
With the right guard rails GenAI is a powerful tool. It is capable of bringing together information scattered across many resources and into a cohesive whole. It is also capable of summarising the information into easily digested chunks.
Without the guardrails the risk is that you get hallucinations and delusions.
I can see why the upper echelons would trust GenAI more than colleagues. There is a lot of politics and rivalry up there. GenAI is only as impartial as its sources but it has no skin in the game, no reason to mislead. Decisions at the top are calculated risks, they aren't deterministic. In that arena, GenAI is as a good source.
I don't know what percentage of exec decisions can be quantified as "right" but I'd be surprised if it reach 70%
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply