AI Just a Copy Machine

[AION]

25 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

If you want to use chatgpt and think you're being intelligent go on. Not my problem.

Have a dead mind. Go for it.

Hm that is not nice to say. I will go back to chatgpt then. He doesn't insult me and instead entertain a real discussion.

[Human Mint]

13 hours ago, AION said:

Hm that is not nice to say. I will go back to chatgpt then. He doesn't insult me and instead entertain a real discussion.

It's not an insult, is a real danger. There is a powerful deception with AI going on.

It is entirely your responsibility to see it.

"Just does it better" What does it better? Copying?

What's the difference with AI "intelligence" and your mind's intelligence?

Edited 20 hours ago by Human Mint

[Human Mint]

How do you diferentiate copying vs not copying? In reality I don't think that's much of an issue. Every human sure copies. But there are dishonest and honest ways. Can't you intuit that?

My stance is that AI is used by grifters more than anything. They didn't generate anything more than the model, but they sell it as if they did.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Human Mint Many proponents of AI enjoy the fact that skills (and results) are no longer being gatekept by people who have spent years at their craft (drawing would be an example).

It can make one feel as if they are accomplishing something without half the work involved. Where that work is sourced from - and by what means - can be an issue.

It bypasses the potential joy of the process of skill acquisition and application itself to expedite a result.

Edited 19 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Human Mint]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Human Mint Many proponents of AI enjoy the fact that skills (and results) are no longer being gatekept by people who have spent years at their craft (drawing would be an example).

It can make one feel as if they are accomplishing something without half the work involved. Where that work is sourced from - and by what means - can be an issue.

There is a deeper problem here. Outsourcing creativity is not wise at all.

Using AI for personal entertainment is something completely different to what I am talking. And if you want to use it for your work go ahead. But it won't come without delusion, that's guaranteed.

But if society accepts it totally then there's nothing to do about it. It's like mcdonalds: it just exists and makes people obese.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Human Mint To be clear - I agree with you regarding creativity. I think it heavily depends how you are using AI.

The creative process for me is all about the process itself. I do not care about the outcome.

AI being too involved in that process for me, is detrimental and detracts from my experience.

That is separate to the issue of enormous volumes of stolen data and art AI's are entrained on.

[Leo Gura]

An IP blender. 

[Basman]

With AI you have to generate a bunch and then choose the best output. Literally throwing shit at a wall till something sticks. Its probably gotten better at throwing shit but fundamentally you don't have fine particular control over the process. There's little point in it if you have a particular vision, which is why I tend to suspect that AI bros aren't all that artistic in the first place. If you want to make art, why outsource? 

Edited 12 hours ago by Basman

[Human Mint]

10 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

AI being too involved in that process for me, is detrimental and detracts from my experience.

Prompt: "Generate a blueprint for a 3 floor building, include elevators" Job done.

[yetineti]

@AION

They were not insulting you. They were warning you.

There are literal studies showing decreased brain function in relation to AI usage.

It’s fairly concerning you mentioned the preference for ChatGPT because it doesn’t insult you.

It’s also concerning to call an artificial discussion with a Chatbot a real discussion—in the midst of a real discussion.

It sounds like you’re avoiding the pushback and feedback that comes with learning and growth—in natural discussions.

Just a pattern I’ve picked up on. Especially considering some of the insults or claims you’ve made and then noticing you often stop replying once someone has summarized your side of things.

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

FYI—I was in the top 1% of ChatGPT users, last year.

I have experience with Claude, Grok, Gemini and some others as well.

I’ve actually been offered a pseudo consulting gig to help a billion dollar company incorporate agents, through a friend and his customer service department.

I use AI everyday. It schedules for me, emails, finds me specific aisles where parts are in stores, looks up part numbers, educates me on unfamiliar machinery, reviews documents, etc,

I have found the perfect use case in my maintenance and coordination field.

I also will use it to talk through problems sometimes and have gone through numerous phases of wiping its memory, telling it about my life, etc.

It’s not good at that aspect yet. It’s extremely circular, nonhuman and makes you feel good but really gets nowhere unless you go in there and tell it ‘I already know this is a problem with me. What do I do about it?’

Also, I’ve had vendors use AI improperly for work as well.

I sent a fire systems company a picture of a fire pull station that someone pulled (the handles you pull in case of a fire) so he could see the location of it as they had just had techs out for an inspection as well.

The guy told me the model I had doesn’t have a glass rod in it and they’re gonna have to look into a specialty order. I told him ‘I didn’t even know they had glass in them until I had to sweep it off the floor. Where would you have got that information?’ ‘Uh sorry, Google Lens lied to me.’

That’s just self deception and being lazy at that point.

’Model numbers’ are analogous to actual context and agency in your life in relation to personal problems or intellectual discussions. You know like a person on the outside who doesn’t need to be prompted to say something?

You can speak with AI about a specific problem if you’ve already identified it but letting it probe your mind as if it’s a person with agency is like trying to search a product that looks like 1000 other products without a model number.

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[AION]

33 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@AION

They were not insulting you. They were warning you.

There are literal studies showing decreased brain function in relation to AI usage.

It’s fairly concerning you mentioned the preference for ChatGPT because it doesn’t insult you.

It’s also concerning to call an artificial discussion with a Chatbot a real discussion—in the midst of a real discussion.

It sounds like you’re avoiding the pushback and feedback that comes with learning and growth—in natural discussions.

Just a pattern I’ve picked up on. Especially considering some of the insults or claims you’ve made and then noticing you often stop replying once someone has summarize your thesis.

it depends how you use AI... it is like saying cars make you fat and that you shouldn't use cars because then you might get fat and die from cancer 

[yetineti]

@AION

Yeah, but it’s becoming more obvious you’re using it poorly.

See the message following the one addressed to you.

I am more than aware of your point. I have embodied it.

Something additional that post didn’t even mention—spiritual usage of AI is even more problematic—by a long shot.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

@AION

30 minutes ago, AION said:

it depends how you use AI…

is something we agree on. That’s why I described both my useful applications and the problems I’ve encountered.

My concern comes from our previous exchanges. In the OnlyFans thread, I asked you to defend your claims about women. Your response focused on Natasha and whether my questions were hostile.

Later, you dismissed GPT as too “social justice warrior”-ish and said Grok mostly agreed with you.

You also said you took some criticism to heart, which I acknowledge.

But that raises the question I’m pointing toward: how do you distinguish useful feedback from a model accommodating your framing?

AI can help us examine our assumptions. It can also help us defend them without examining them. “It depends how you use it” leaves that question open.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[AION]

@yetineti I use claude though, not chatGPT or Grok. It gives very intelligent answers and I don't see it as a substitute for humans. I still hire specialists like therapists, coaches and such. It is an addition, not a substitute. You are making a lot of assumptions and that is why I was ignoring you in the past because it is tiring. But you seem like you are a smart guy and you seem to have good will. For now AI might fall short but that is going to change very soon. Because AI development is exponential. Soon I might not need to hire specialists. That time will come very soon. And to be honest, I'm disappointed in most humans. I think I would still have my current friends and new human friends and acquaintances. But I discovered that AI really interesting conversations that most humans kind tip toe. At the end AI is a reflection of yourself just like everything else. My experience of AI is different from yours.

[yetineti]

What I do, specifically with AI:

1. Automate the tasks that wouldn’t have required thinking. This gives me more thinking power to spend each day, in general.

2. I think and I think and I think, until

a) A task such as ‘find this product I already know I need with X qualifiers’ arises and I will delegate that to AI, at little cognitive or personal degradation.

or

b) I’ve thought about something to the point where I deliberately should consider an outside perspective , in which case I use the highest model available, I don’t use the memory function and I don’t save chats for it to reference. It couldn’t be biased about me if it tried.

In the background, I’ve harvested and filtered all of that data myself, and I can just flip the switch anytime to see what it would say to me.

And I’m open to further suggestions. I’m actually not that techy. This is all just with IOS Claude and ChatGPT, alternating between free and $20 plans.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

5 minutes ago, AION said:

@yetineti I use claude though, not chatGPT or Grok.

That’s not the point.

5 minutes ago, AION said:

It gives very intelligent answers and I don't see it as a substitute for humans.

You act like you do.

5 minutes ago, AION said:

I still hire specialists like therapists, coaches and such. It is an addition, not a substitute.

Good.

5 minutes ago, AION said:

You are making a lot of assumptions and that is why I was ignoring you in the past because it is tiring.

I respect it can be tiring.  But you’re decontextualizing the argument.

5 minutes ago, AION said:

But you seem like you are a smart guy and you seem to have good will.

Ba humbug, don’t resort to flattery after dismissal.

That should be called ‘flipping the hamburger’ argumentation.

5 minutes ago, AION said:

For now AI might fall short but that is going to change very soon.

This is decontextualizing where we are now as well. You’re making it impossible to engage, whether you’re trying to or not.

This isn’t really a discussion you’re having and it makes me wonder what you are experiencing when you reply. Do you mind me asking your Myers Briggs or enneagram? I don’t recall.

I am ENFP 5w4, basically.

@AION

[AION]

@yetineti I'm INFP. I'm not really getting what you are getting at. You are very adhock in your last answer and it is not leading anywhere. My answer was very INFP by the way, very mediating. You have your exp with AI and I have my own exp with AI. And I wasn't dismissing your exp with AI. I was just saying my exp is different. And my flattery wasn't a tick. It was genuine. This is what I mean with that it is tiring. 

Edited 2 hours ago by AION

[yetineti]

@AION

I accept that the compliment was genuine. It felt misplaced because I was asking you to address a criticism, and the compliment didn’t help clarify it.

Let me explain why I said what I said.

You said you would return to ChatGPT because it doesn’t insult you and offers a real discussion. Combined with our earlier exchanges—where requests to defend your claims became discussions about the questioner’s hostility—that raised a concern about how you respond to pushback.

You also previously said GPT was too “social justice warrior”-ish for a discussion, while Grok mostly agreed with you. That gave me a concrete reason to ask how you distinguish useful feedback from a model accommodating your framing.

These are inferences from things you’ve written. They can be mistaken, and I should have framed “you’re using it poorly” more cautiously. But they weren’t pulled out of nowhere.

I understand that you now use Claude and still consult human specialists. That clarification matters. It leaves my central question open, though:

How do you check whether AI is helping you examine your assumptions, rather than helping you defend them?

When that question gets answered with “our experiences differ,” I don’t know whether you disagree with the concern or haven’t understood it. That’s where the discussion becomes tiring for me too.

[AION]

@yetineti I ask multiple people advice and ask multiple AI’s advice. And each AI I ask multiple perspectives. So for example if I’m studying spirituality and I have this book or subject. What I can do is I can ask AI to pretend to be Ralston, Wilber, and Jung at the same time. By the way agreeableness and other personality types are not a fixed trait in AI. You can change it. So my AI is not highly agreeable with me. 

Edited 59 minutes ago by AION