-Video games: Provide fun, but probably overall bad for society bc people waste too much time on them.
-Alcohol: Most drinkers get a lot of value out of drinking, but alcoholism is so bad that on net alcohol's probably bad.
-Guns & nuclear weapons: Wish both didn't exist, but each provides a lot of use to the specific people who have them.
-TikTok: Overall causes too many people to believe misinformation, but for a lot of other people is fun or interesting.
It's possible to think AI chatbots are net bad because people use them to cheat, or they rely on them for information too much and believe false information, without believing that they are always useless in all circumstances. I can use ChatGPT to alphabetize a long list for me. That's useful, even if I think overall chatbots are net bad.
If so, that's a pretty radical position, and if not I don't understand how they're relevant.
I like this reasoning. If something is popular it is objectively good. For example 21.7% of adults on earth use tobacco, so it must be good then.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.PRV.SMOK?name_desc=f...
Except for TikTok, which is bad because people share their experiences of chat bots not being very good on there.
As an aside, “dumb” is subjective, though if we had to put a label on it, “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels” sounds like it could be something?
Trying to imagine using enough energy to boil two liters of water(1)(2) to sort a list instead of typing
sort list.txt
which is a command that works pretty much the same on Windows(3), Linux/Bash(4), macOS (5) and does not have any risk of hallucinating at all, and the only reason I could imagine myself doing that was if for some reason, using enough energy to boil two liters of water to sort a list made me feel good. Like I would only do that if I got some sort of rush out of it or if it made people on the internet think that I am smart.
1 https://ai-basics.com/how-much-energy-does-chatgpt-really-us...
2 https://eatwithus.net/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-boil-1...
3 https://www.windows-commandline.com/sort-command/
On the one hand the fact that people accept hallucinations is all the proof you need to indicate that chat bot usage is driven by feelings and not results, and on the other hand there’s a blog post that might’ve been written by a chat bot about how chat bot energy usage is pretty cool, actually, so who is to know anything about anything
Frankly, the inherent contradiction of your vehement support for something you think shouldn't exist has confounded me, and your position that video games, guns, and alcohol also should not exist is so far on the fringe of society that it's hard to take at face value.
I am not conflating "useful" and "good overall". You are the one claiming that something (let's pick TikTok) is useful to its users, but shouldn't exist. Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?
When you say useful in this case, I think you mean that users are deriving short term pleasure from interacting with the app by choice. You also seem to believe that the long term effects of near-constant social media consumption are so harmful that it should be banned. In my mind, if the latter is true, the short term pleasure is not in reality useful. If the latter is false, then the short term pleasure could be considered "useful" but there's no need for a ban.
This pattern also seems to hold with your example of students using chatGPT to avoid writing papers themselves. If I needed to succinctly describe the actions of someone who is spending tens of thousands of dollars a year and at least several hundred hours a year at a place for the express purpose of learning yet also actively avoids making effort to learn, "stupid" is a word that jumps to mind. Yet you seem to be arguing that is not the case because they know they're making a bad decision, which is hard to accept as an attempt at honest dialogue.
In both cases, people are trading long term gains for short term enjoyment. Calling that choice "stupid" may be rude or blunt, but it's not incorrect in most instances.
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth so I would welcome an actual answer to my question above (Why should something that is useful to its users not exist?), but I did want to explain what seems to me like an inherent contradiction in your position.
I would say that's true using a strict definition of the term, and is definitely true for common usage of the term.
In the future, you should just tell people up front when you're going to redefine terms to suit your needs (in your article and in your posts here, you apparently define "useful" as "providing immediate gratification with no consideration of any long term effects" and you seem to be define "stupid" only as "making decisions without full knowledge of the consequences" above) rather than confusing nearly everyone who reads your writing.
Yes, it is possible for something to be useful in specific circumstances but still be bad overall.
We have disagreements about what counts as useful. If our definition is "This is only useful if it leads to longterm happiness" that seems way too specific and would exclude too much.
It's stupid to cheat, I agree and try to make that clear. What I'm saying is the claim "Students think they're learning when they cheat using AI" assumes students are so stupid that they think cheating off of a robot will help them learn as much as writing an essay themselves. That's obviously wrong.
You provided a list of things you don't think should exist, which is equating them on some level to me, but okay. That context matters, which is why your "guns and balloons" example isn't meaningful.
Ultimately, I'm reading into this that you're deflecting from your actual point that you can't really defend by only bringing up nuclear weapons as a response to a statement about all the other items on that list of things that you think should be banned.
> Yes, it is possible for something to be useful in specific circumstances but still be bad overall.
Of course. No one is disputing that. That doesn't mean that things in that category should be banned outright, because it would make no sense to do so in many cases. Therefore, regulation exists.
> We have disagreements about what counts as useful. If our definition is "This is only useful if it leads to longterm happiness" that seems way too specific and would exclude too much.
You seem to disagree with nearly every person interacting with you (and the rest of us don't disagree with each other) about the definition of "useful" and a couple other key words, which really makes it hard to discuss your content. Even more so when you refuse to provide an explanation of what seems to be a very obvious contradiction in your reasoning.
FYI, no one I saw is using the definition you provided above either, which would be another very unusual definition of the term.
> It's stupid to cheat, I agree and try to make that clear. What I'm saying is the claim "Students think they're learning when they cheat using AI" assumes students are so stupid that they think cheating off of a robot will help them learn as much as writing an essay themselves. That's obviously wrong.
That is wrong, and no one I'm aware of is claiming that, so I have no idea what the point would be of arguing against it.
If you care to explain your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly now in order to continue the discussion, feel free. Otherwise, I'll leave you to continue to beat on your strawmen (there are at least 3 in this response alone) in peace.
If you bought a hammer and never used it, so it never actually improved yourself, would you say the hammer itself isn't "useful"?
It's very clear that you're way more interested in avoiding any serious discussion of your position, because the entire premise of that article (anyone questioning why you use chatGPT is saying all chatbots are completely useless, and that a meaningful number of people you interact with are making that claim) is a strawman unless you primarily interact with people who are technologically illiterate.
I suppose that is straightforward and simple, but probably not in the way you intended.
> If you bought a hammer and never used it, so it never actually improved yourself, would you say the hammer itself isn't "useful"?
I have no idea why you think ridiculous analogies like convey your thoughts clearly, but to answer your question: No I would not say the hammer isn't useful, because it has a use and just I didn't take advantage of its utility.
You literally speak in riddles (via your endless use of hypothetical scenarios with no attempt to link them to the topic at hand), refuse to respond to direct questions that could clear up confusion, and have some rather eccentric and seemingly inconsistent views that you seem to really want to convey to others.
I'm not the one who needs luck going forward, my friend. Best wishes.