Comment on A generation taught not to think: AI in the classroom
jpreston2005@lemmy.world 4 weeks agovoice activated light switches that constantly spy on you, harvesting your data for 3rd parties?
Claiming that using ai requires more critical thinking than not is a wild take, bro. Gonna have to disagree with all of what you said hard.
You hit on why I don’t use them. But some people don’t care about that for a variety of reasons. Doesn’t make them less than.
Anyone who tries to use AI and not apply critical thinking fails at thier task because AI is just wrong often. So they either stop using it, or they apply critical thinking to figure out when the results are usable. But we don’t have to agree on that.
I don’t think using an inaccurate tool gives you extra insight into anything. If I asked you to measure the size of objects around your house, and gave you a tape measure that was not correctly metered, would that make you better at measuring things? We learn by asking questions and getting answers. If the answers given are wrong, then you haven’t learned anything. It, in fact, makes you dumber.
People who rely on ai are dumber, because using the tool makes them dumber. QED?
How about this. I think it is pretty well known that pilots and astronauts are trained on simulations where some of the information they get from “tools” or gauges is wrong. On the surface it is just simulating failures. But the larger purpose is to improve critical thinking. They are trained to take each peice of information into context and if it doesn’t fit, question it. Sound familiar?
AI spits out lots of information with every response. Much of it will be accurate. But sometimes there will be a faulty basis in it that causes one or more parts of the information to be wrong. But the wrongness almost always follows a pattern. In context the information is usually obviously wrong. And if you learn to spot the faulty basis, you can even sus out which information is still good. Or you can just tell it where it went wrong and it often will come back with the correct answer.
Talking to people isn’t all that different. There is a whole sub for confidently wrong on reddit. But spotting when a person is wrong is often harder because the depth of thier faulty basis can be soo much deeper than an AIs. And, they are people, so you pften can’t politely question the accuracy of what they are saying. Or they are just a podcast… I think you get where I am going.
you are really reaching to justify this stuff, it’s wild. No. I disagree. using a flawed tool doesn’t increase your critical thinking skills. All it will do is confuse and ill inform the vast majority of people. Not everybody is an astronaut.
If AI has a significant amount of incapabilities and is often wrong (which it definitely is), wouldn’t it take more critical thinking to determine when it’s done something wrong?
If I were to give you a calculator that was programmed to give the wrong answers, would that be a useful tool? Would you be better off for having used it?
Does a calculator do a significant amount of statistical analysis and base its output on the most probable result from a massive data set?
No. That would be stupid.
People taking the response from LLMs at face value is a problem, which is the point of the discussion, but disregarding it entirely would be equally dumb. Critical thinking would include knowing when and where to use a specific tool instead of trying to force one to be universal.
but that’s the problem. Ai people are pushing it as a universal tool. The huge push we saw to have ai in everything is kind of proof of that.
People taking the response from LLMs at face value is a problem
So we can’t trust it, but in addition to that, we also can’t trust people on TV, or people writing articles for official sounding websites, or the white house, or pretty much anything anymore. and that’s the real problem. We’ve cultivated an environment where facts and realities are twisted to fit a narrative, and then demanded that we give equal air time and consideration to literal false information being peddled by hucksters. These LLMs probably wouldn’t be so bad if we didn’t feed them the same derivative and nonsensical BS we consume on a daily basis. but at this point we’ve just introduced and are now relying on a flawed tool that’s basing it’s knowledge on flawed information and it just creates a positive feedback loop of bullshit. People are using ai to write BS articles that are then referenced by ai. It won’t ever get better, it will only get worse.
Does a calculator do a significant amount of statistical analysis and base its output on the most probable result from a massive data set?
Well, they will be very soon. And probably require a monthly monthly subscription fee as well. They will leave no technological orifice unviolated.
May God have mercy on us.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
and recording your conversations, even when your not even asking alexa to do anything.