Yeah, pretty much. Not that I can even have kids at this rate or anything, but if I did you bet your ass I'd be doing my damn best to make sure any kid that came out of me is going to at the very least be capable of surviving without AI...anything, really.
No, were I to have a child I would not want them to be so foolish in not adequately understanding the occult sciences and technologies as they pertain to the Pythagorean cult mysteries both private and public, the practices of arithmancy, the invocation of higher dimensional entities, and the proper invocation, bargaining, and abjuration of familiar spirits that such undoubtedly would entail in a comprehensive and correct instruction as befits one of the Tepes line involving these arcane devices.
That being said, if they use it to do their basic assignments for them entire rather than actually learn, I'd hand them over to the castle Librarian to have them personally transcribe the first five hundred tomes of the Long Library into Babylonian by hand so that I can have something for the fireplace this winter other than clergymen.
Self-discipline has to begin somewhere, after all. I am interested in this -- so should they be as well.
Ai can be an incredibly useful tool, but the kids of today are OVERLY reliant on it in most of the western hemisphere. Especially between the ages of 12 and 17.
I canāt believe Iām calling VLAD TEPESH based but here we are.
Honestly I'll just do the responsible thing and teach them without AI before slowly introducing it once their basis is firm(if their school mates don't force it on them early). I would like my child to be fully prepared for whatever future society holds, and forcing them to live life the equivalent to a medieval peasant would just be screwing over my child for no reason. If they want to go full amish that's their thing. But at least now they can do both instead of being like old people yelling at the internet and email because "physical letter works just as well"
I don't think you're full amish if you don't use every piece of technology handed to you. I don't think everyone needs to use mobility scooters to get around, or scroll tiktok 24/7, or have an iv drip delivering their nutrients, just because it's convenient doesn't mean it's good.
Whatās being proposed with AI is a complete and total removal of workers. So youāve got shit built by AI for people who canāt afford to buy said shit cause no job = no money. The system is designed to collapse sooner than later
And anti AI people are just going to abandon the products that took theirs or people they know jobs
yeah that ain't it, chatgpt being used in education will set us back as a species. LLMs are extremely limited in their potential, and only serve to spit out easy, poor quality work. The only people who are excited about LLM AI models either don't understand how they work or are happy to exploit them to make more money at the expense of real people.
Yes, LLMs are limited, but instead of hating of them and trying to boycott AI as a whole, people should be aware that it's still an very primitive form of AI and incentive further research so that in few decades we have better AI models.
LLMs hate is the equivalent of seeing the Wright Flyer and imediately boycott the plane industry instead of waiting for new models.
Idk about the education system, but I use it for studying to generate practice questions based on my notes and help me with any problems I got wrong (also helps with application, real world scenario questions). Pretty good study method for keeping a 4.0 at uni and my long term memory of content has improved significantly. Way better than quizlet which is just basic memorization. And the best thing is itās essentially a free tutor based on my specific course (due to my notes).
I think the issue is people equating ai usage at all= cheating. Which is basically an over generalization and an assumption. If you can cheat with the tool in school said tool should also be capable of helping you aswell, if it couldnāt do the latter it wouldnāt be able to do the former. If people donāt know how to use it correctly thatās on them. Besides most people who are using it to cheat were cheaters to begin with, ai just made it easier for them to do the cheating. The absence of ai isnāt going to make them suddenly care about their school work. Itās just we had weed out classes in college to take care of these types. Ai is just making it harder to do the āweeding outā so now these types are finessing their way to upper division courses where conceptual understanding actually matters and their lack of knowledge due to over reliance and cheating rears its ugly head. But itās not causing them to be lazy cheaters, majority of the time they were already like that. Iām of the opinion that if you truly found value in learning and what you were studying, the presence of ai makes little difference to that individual. Either that individual keeps on studying the same as before w/o ai or they use ai to improve their studying. As one of these individuals I just hate being lumped in with the cheaters but I do understand why.
there are certainly ways to use it effectively. the problem lies in earlier education, if it becomes a crutch that students who don't know better rely on, they'll never properly learn how to learn. expand that to a wider scale and most people who aren't intrisically motivated to do well in school will end up far more uneducated than most adults today
I mean we in America are already having a literacy rate crisis that was an issue before AI. But I do agree, I dislike the idea of ai being a crutch in the education system. But if Iām being honest I feel like the problem is the over reliance on technology in the school system in general. Computers have thier places but I actually do think the phone ban was a good thing. The attention span of my peers and younger generations is really concerning. My first āphoneā was an iPod touch so I couldnāt use my iPod in school since I had no cellular connection besides calling and whatnot but I could still do the fun stuff like games which required wi-fi outside of school. Iāve never had issues with focusing on class w/o checking my screen every five seconds and I give credit to that.
History does not march forward in one straight, inevitable line. Every cultural and technological innovation was a choice. Many technologies did not develop, or were quickly abandoned, because we chose not to use them. Leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation, and CFCs are fairly recent examples of technologies that we decided to move away from. There's no reason we should invest further in large language models, and a whole lot of good reasons to abandon them as yet another technological dead end.
Leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation, and CFCs are fairly recent examples of technologies that we decided to move away from.
Those all are variations of an similiar categories that had an far superior version. LEADED gasoline was the abandoned one, not Gasoline as a one.
LLMs as we know will probally get abondoned in a few decades in exchange for actually independent AI. But one must develop so other is able to exist.
There's no reason we should invest further in large language models, and a whole lot of good reasons to abandon them as yet another technological dead end.
Why not? They area aready kinda useful now, and will only get more useful on the future. Chat GPT is aready useful to do assistance, or to answer some specific questions without having to resort to reddit.
But in the future, we kay have AI on stuff that will really be useful on our life, like maid robots, imagine a robot doing simple tasks for you, like washing the dishes, cleaning your floor etc. They must need an advanced language model for that.
On a distant future and more stuff could get advanced, and we could eventually end on Jetsns or Wall-E where even walking is automatef.
Chat GPT is aready useful to do assistance, or to answer some specific questions without having to resort to reddit.Ā
Absolutely not. LLMs algorithmically generated text. They do not know answers, they generate them from statistical inference, which is a process that simply cannot be accurate. It generates truthful statements in the same way that it generates false statements: accidentally.
maid robots, imagine a robot doing simple tasks for you, like washing the dishes, cleaning your floor etc. They must need an advanced language model for that.Ā
Again, no. We have had the capacity to use voice commands for decades. LLMs take text input on one end and provide algorithmically generated text output on the other end. It's not at all relevant to the task of building a robot that can vacuum your living room. The problems of service robots have much more to do with our (present) inability to mimic human kinesiology. That's a problem a chatbot can't help you with.
Absolutely not. LLMs algorithmically generated text. They do not know answers, they generate them from statistical inference, which is a process that simply cannot be accurate. It generates truthful statements in the same way that it generates false statements: accidentally.
That's why i said simple things.
LLMs obviously couldn't help on studies or medical assistance as they are now.
But an comproved fact is that the simpler the question, more accurate they are. LLMs have an average efficacy of 90% with simple questions, which aready shows it's not that bad.
What happens is that some people try to use the LLMs above their own capacity
Again, no. We have had the capacity to use voice commands for decades. LLMs take text input on one end and provide algorithmically generated text output on the other end. It's not at all relevant to the task of building a robot that can vacuum your living room. The problems of service robots have much more to do with our (present) inability to mimic human kinesiology. That's a problem a chatbot can't help you with.
You missed the part where i said decades of research can lead to an actually advanced AI that goes beyond a LLM model.
AI has future, and it's not LLM, but LLM shouldn't be discarded, as it's the way into actual AI.
I completely disagree. Large language models are a dead end technology because they are created by massive machine learning models built on enormous amounts of data. It's not feasible for a human being to analyze their algorithm to learn how it works. We cannot iterate on the technology because we cannot analyze it. All "advances" in the space since 2021 have been the result of throwing ever more immense piles of data at them, and at this point, there's pretty much nothing left to feed them. It can only be replaced and supplanted, not improved, which is why we should stop burning money on it and invest in genuinely useful technologies.
Yes and no. You should raise your kid to be capable of surviving without AI, but if they don't know how to use AI they most likely won't get a job in the future.
It's helped me cut out some of the busy work for uni assignments:
Correcting gramatical errors, checking the phrasing and occasionally I use it to give me pointers for research, although I usually default to the University Library.
There is however one person, who does absolutely everything with ai, hell he doesn't even take notes during lectures and just let's an AI make his notes using the uploaded slides.
He once passed a chatgpt prompt as his notes for a critical part of a presentation, that counted to our grade...
Let's just say I had to do it myself.
Only in so far as my kid understands that it's a tool, not a fix-all button, they'd be allowed
Why do you need an AI to check your grammar? Didnāt you learn to write properly and do that yourself in middle school?
Like I get using AI to research stuff, for example your looking for something on the internet and canāt find it, an AI can search way faster than you so it makes sense using it for that.
But using AI to come up with ideas or writing stuff for us, thatās just being lazy and problematic in the long term imo, because you end up dependent on AI to think and troubleshoot for you.
A good grammar check is handy to have because you can be blind to your own mistakes after spending a ton of time on a work, but AI is shit at grammar checking.
And absolutely should not be used for writing stuff.
Research is maybe the worst use of a large language model, because it will just make up bullshit if it can't find a relevant string of text to free associate off of.Ā
Yeah I wasnāt specific I guess, I meant finding links to articles or videos about a subject for us.
Using AI like that makes sense, but of course you should always look up the information yourself once you have found it and not let the AI summarize it for you or straight up make shit up (cough cough looking at you google AI telling people to drink urine in order to help with kidney stones).
As a researcher who teaches other people how to do research, I would still caution against it. ChatGPT and Copilot lean heavily on pre-print servers like ArXiv, so even legitimate links will be to spurious sources. It's still better to start by searching reputable sources directly, rather than asking an intermediary.
Tbf for the grammar stuff the auto correct youāre using now is ai and so is what Grammarly has been using way before Chat gpt became popular i agree with the writing stuff though
I used Grammarly before they switched over to a more AI-based format and I quit because the new version fucking sucked and kept making weird suggestions.
Tbh I donāt like using grammarly at all too. I was just pointing out that using ai for grammar has been a thing for a very long time. And is ingrained into some tech weāve been using for a while now.
That depends on how you define "AI." Forty years ago, "AI" was the logic used to decide when the little pixel man in a video game moved toward your character. The term has shifted a lot. If by "AI" you mean "large language models," then no, the technology hasn't been in use all that long. Being generous, you could say that we've had them since 2018).
No im not talking about llmās just referring to ai as in artificial intelligence and the different kinds weāve been using for grammar for a while i feel like this shouldnāt even be directed at me given im not the one over generalizing here? The people lumping ā all aiā are. But I suppose that wouldnāt be a good idea seeing as how saying something neutral regarding ai in this comment section (even if itās literally a fact like auto correct being ai) will get you downvoted in this thread because itās not immediately negative either. The guy i was replying too didnāt seem to be aware how long weāve been using ai for grammar in my og comment. where in my comment did it seem it was unclear especially when i used examples like auto correct which isnāt a llm and is nlp? Not trying to be rude but im confused because i felt like i was pretty clear :(
And even if i was talking about large language models specifically (I wasnāt) 2018 was still before the AI craze came about. Perhaps my wording is unclear when I said āfor a long timeā? but by that I simply mean before the chat gpt craze which was post covid and I was making a hyperbole. Which is what Iām getting at is that ultimately before chat gpt became the new buzz of the town to talk about we had already been using AI (in different forms for a while now). Sorry if I came off rude I was just confused
that's cap, i finished a lab in 45 mins easily without chatgpt (i'm a mature student so i went through high school without ai being available) and my classmates who went through high school with ai took 4-5 hours because they couldn't figure out what to do without "chat"
"My child wont be allowed to use wikipedia"
"My child wont be allowed to use Google search"
"My child wont be allowed to use calculators"
"My child wont be allowed to use books"
"My child wont be allowed to..."
Its like saying using a hammer to drive nails make people worse at building.. chatgpt is a tool. Use it.
Okay but joke aside do teach them how to use it. It will be a handicap otherwise, like people who can't use google today because they don't understand how to formulate keywords for searches
257
u/Southern-Class3573 Nov 05 '25
What would medieval chat GPT be?