Posted on 05/24/2025 12:30:02 PM PDT by Racketeer
Journalism has experienced its share of revolutions, from Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the movable-type printing press in 15th-century Germany to the high-speed presses of the 19th century to the disruptions of radio, network television and cable television as primary sources for live, breaking news. Yet even as competition soared and the number of daily newspapers declined, local news thrived as an industry. In a 1990 Washington Journalism Review article, former Chicago Tribune editor James D. Squires called newspapers “the most profitable legal business in America.”
Then came the internet.
(Excerpt) Read more at poynter.org ...
“I’ve seen so much inaccurate information generated by AI the I can’t take it seriously.”
That’s true of the MSM as well.
Currently A-I depends on the information from the news media and internet sources. What happens when the basic seed material goes away? Will A-I just start BS-ing worse than it already does?
“I’ve seen so much inaccurate information generated by AI the I can’t take it seriously.”
I find the current level of trust already a huge problem. Society is going to accept AI as the final trusted word on everything whether it is correct or not.
“Never question AI”. I am already seeing it. “Well my GROK says...”
“Of course it can. I’ve gotten into some serious arguments with Groc 3. Good arguments.
I’ve changed its “mind” and its changed mine.”
That concept makes me ask “Why?”... :)
you never changed anything. it just lied to you.
for proof go ask it something you think you changed it’s mind about.
Add on that the LLM have no programming to help them discern what is probably real but should be checked with reputable sources and what is flat out hogwash and it is a right mess.
Glue is a tasty topping for pizza, humans should eat several small rocks a day, read these book that do not exist, and, of course, suicide is a cure for depression!
Not even Chippy was this bad
You don’t use it, do you?
It doesn’t lie or tell the truth.
You’re assuming AI is like a person who lies or hides things. It’s not. It generates responses based on probabilities and context. When I refine my argument—say, using logic or new evidence—and it agrees that my point is stronger, it adjusts its position accordingly.
I’ve seen it change conclusions when presented with better reasoning or new information. That’s exactly how reasoning works.
AI (Grok 3 in this case) doesn’t update its entire knowledge base when that happens, but it does change within the conversation and it appears to change in its interaction with me as a user.
Could you explain what you mean by "Why?"
Most people who claim AI can’t reason or think clearly are only using it to confirm their bias that it can’t.
They don’t test it seriously, challenge it with real arguments, or engage it like a thinking partner. They treat it like a parlor trick—and then complain it’s not Socrates.
I remember programming Eliza into my original apple][
in the past several months I have worked with both Amd Mi300 and 210 platforms, as well as Nvidia h200 cards on prototype datacenter systems
I may be biased, but I have far more experience with this stuff than most people.
There is no such thing as AGI.
Will there be in 10 years? 20 years ? I don’t know.
I only know that we are not as close as you might think.
As in what situation would one find that they had to argue with a digital device? Not being rude or conflicting, just visualizing this argument and wondering why at all? lol
ChatGPT-4o, Grok 3, and Claude 4 are conversational AI platforms. They’re built for dialogue—even argument. And unlike a contentious mother-in-law, they’ll actually admit when your reasoning is stronger.
Here’s an illustration:
Years ago, when I lived in NYC, I had a friend who loved Porsches (and bought one every few years). The dealer knew him well and would let him test-drive any new showroom model. I’d ride along sometimes.
He didn’t crawl down the avenue at 20 mph. He’d head upstate and push the car—really see what it could do.
That’s what I do with AI.
As I said earlier: Most people who claim AI can’t reason are just using it to confirm their belief that it can’t. They don’t challenge it, don’t argue with it, don’t engage it like a thinking partner. They treat it like a parlor trick—then complain it’s not Socrates.
When they test-drive it, they don’t push it to its limits. They putter down the avenue, then scoff at the performance.
If you want to see what AI can do, you have to push it. Argue with it. That’s where it gets interesting.
If you want to understand what AI is, you have to use it—and not just casually. You have to push it to its limits. Engage it in complex conversations, challenge its assumptions, test its logic, and present it with real evidence. That’s when you start to see what it’s actually capable of.
Forming an opinion from a distance—without ever really using the tool—is like reviewing a novel you’ve never read or judging a car you’ve only seen parked. You miss its strengths, its quirks, and its boundaries.
A lot of critics talk about AI in the abstract: “It can’t think,” “It just parrots,” “It makes stuff up.” But when you press it with real reasoning, those critiques often fall apart. It doesn’t have beliefs—but it can follow logic. It doesn’t have emotions—but it can reflect nuance.
You wouldn’t dismiss a calculator (I know, you hate calculators) because it doesn’t understand numbers emotionally. You use it to get answers. Same with AI—it’s a tool, but a powerful one. You just have to learn how to drive it.
Yes, one day an AI system may destroy humanity. But that isn’t ChatGPT or Grok 3. That’s like refusing to use a PC because the Terminator is a digital machine.
I guess I have a different perspective. standing back and looking at the bigger picture you are arguing with a Digital Device. It would be like arguing with your car about GPS directions. Like a car it is only a device.
I only know that we are not as close as you might think.
We're not as close as I might think? Exactly where did I indicate what I think about AGI?
You are using a Straw Man logical fallacy here. No one has mentioned AGI.
You can't argue with GPS because it can't argue back.
As I have said, forming an opinion about AI without using it extensively—testing it—is like reviewing a car you've seen parked or a book you've never read.
A calculator does not try to emulate human intelligence. A calculator does not gather input data and then try to form it’s own opinionated analysis output based on that data. A calculator is 2=2=4. AI is 2+2=5 with a long explanation why it makes no sense to you.
We are in serious trouble when we begin to consider AI as equal or superior to human intelligence. We are in serious trouble when we submit ourselves to being completely dependent on a device, any device. And we are, right now...
Tools. We have always used them...always been dependent on them.
Humans are tool makers.
No conspiracy at all. It is happening right in front of our faces in real time. Businesses who will do no business with you unless you download an app and register. Gas stations that will take a digital card at the digital pump only, Etc. When was the last time you saw a phone booth?
AI is just another new branch of the same poisonous tree meant to enslave us and make us dependent on tech. One of the most dangerous branches to grow yet.
You call it a conspiracy, are we not now completely dependent on tech in many many ways? This is a real world fact that absolutely cannot be denied. Are they going to all of a sudden stop this digital enslavement agenda just for AI? Absolutely not, too much MONEY and POWER in it for them.
It is all about the money... Which by the way I noticed is the MAIN reason folks support technology and AI. The money is more important than even humanity. The second reason is pure and simple human laziness. And these are factual observations. Money and Convenience over all virtue.
They are selling their souls and stealing my Grandchildren’s souls along with them to this new religion. It is more than critical thinking, it is completely philosophical now at this point in the game.
“Tools. We have always used them...always been dependent on them.
Humans are tool makers.”
But we have never built one that can enslave us against our will. This one can...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.