Syldras wrote: »

Lucasl402 wrote: »

It's an old saying, but still relevant:
"Garbage in. Garbage out."
If the algorithm is garbage it will do nothing but produce garbage. The AI auto bans from in game language has been reduced since implementation, but the problem is not solved by any means over a year after implementation.

I was specifically replying on "AI makes people uncritical". No, AI doesn't make critical people uncritical. If someone believes every nonsensical AI output without doublechecking or blindly relies on what some random automaton tells them, they've never been critical beforehand.

Agreed. I think we're kind of saying the same thing but saying it differently.

For now at least, I have no fears of AI what so ever. At this point in time there is no AI that can out think an educated human who is capable of critical thinking. ....for now at least.

Waits_Behind_Walls wrote: »

But people are not either critical OR uncritical, nor does the internet as a tool exist in a vacuum. We've adopted the internet as a way to get information from knowledgable sources, but bots and most recently AI have been allowed to game the systems or degrade them. The most "critical people" still have to navigate the minefield of misinformation we have now, and everyone will eventually make a mistake. Maybe we can afford to be more tolerant of AI when half-baked versions of it aren't being rushed into everything to convince us it's useful.

Of course I see how the mass of AI-generated visual and text sources online pose a risk for misinformation. But I disagree with the very simplicistic idea of "Medium x makes people dumb!", not only because the generalization is much too simple but also because I get the feeling that if often shoves all responsibility to media while giving people absolution for all kinds of dumb behavior. It might not be intended, but it's only a small step between the claim that a medium "makes people dumb/sick/lazy/whatever" and "Person x did something idiotic, they're not responsible, media made them like this!" Generally, I'm rather critical about the increasing tendency to assign responsibility to all kinds of things instead of the actual person who did the thing. It's infantilizing and one could discuss what kinds of societal problems that leads to.

Where I live, no one could sue an AI company over people getting bad ideas after using a chat bot, by the way. Adults are responsible for themselves. In case of minors, their parents (or other relatives - the people who have the custody) are responsible for them (and would get into real trouble for not monitoring them sufficiently if something happens; it makes no difference if they got bad ideas by hanging around outside all day and talking to questionable strangers, or whether they hang out in front of their computer all day and talk to questionable real or fictional strangers online).

Syldras wrote: »

randconfig wrote: »

There's a growing body of evidence that reliance on "AI", like large language models, cripples your critical thinking and problem solving skills. Just like apps like TikTok cripple your ability to regulate your focus/attention.

Tools themselves are neutral. A video platform is, first of all, a site to publish and/or watch videos. These will be as intelligent or as stupid as their users are. AI is also just a tool that can be used in different ways. Same applies to the internet as a whole: People can use it to get access on scientific writings and all kinds of classical literature, they can learn about distant cultures and places, they can look at art from museums on the other side of this planet that they might never get the occasion to visit in person, ever, in their whole life. The internet can be used for personal development and learning. Or people can use it to spread dumb gossip and watch brain-corroding nonsense on whatever streaming site. But that's not the fault of the tool, that lies entirely in the hands of the individuals who use it. That's the crucial point: How to use a tool? Hopefully in a non-harmful way.

The quote you were responding to was that reliance on AI negatively affects critical thinking and problem solving skills. And this is, indeed, what is being seen in education right now. We actually know a lot about how people learn and develop their intellectual skills, but the key element is always practice; relying on AI to research and summarize information instead of doing it yourself takes away an opportunity to develop those intellectual skills. It also means the potential to miss out on making important connections or capturing nuance that the AI tool doesn't. And it guarantees that at some point you will submit work containing factual errors and made-up sources.

Tl;dr: people who use AI tools to avoid working too hard also avoid opportunities to learn and grow.

Syldras wrote: »

LootAllTheStuff wrote: »

The quote you were responding to was that reliance on AI negatively affects critical thinking and problem solving skills. And this is, indeed, what is being seen in education right now. We actually know a lot about how people learn and develop their intellectual skills, but the key element is always practice; relying on AI to research and summarize information instead of doing it yourself takes away an opportunity to develop those intellectual skills.

Yes, this is true. But is a person's lazy habit to blindly rely on a machine to think for them the machine's fault or that person's?

I said, already in my earlier comment, it's the person's - no one is forcing them to do this, after all - , and the technology is not the cause for it but only making the already present intellectual lazyness obvious. And this is the actual problem which isn't solved by limiting tech, because it goes deeper and causes different problems, with or without AI available. At least I don't believe these people are more critical when it comes to whatever is presented to them as "the truth", "the way to think", "the correct answer" by human individuals or groups, especially if they have a reputation of authority. Education is the only thing that helps.

I think attributing use of AI tools to only laziness is short-sighted; there are many reasons people might be motivated to take short cuts, especially if there is any kind of time pressure involved. Yes, there are use-cases for such tools, but they are not a panacea and can in fact by positively harmful if used without thought or care. The problem I see generally is that they are too easy to use, but hard to use well.

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

We AI is a wonderful tool. They could put the entirety of the game into it and it could far quicker than a human decern were the bugs first started. And run simulations to see what addition actually caused the bug. Testing is still a must, and humans still needed.
What examples of AI doing poorly in this game do you have to share? Could you please share some examples.

Because ZOS has recently admitted they are perplexed with most of these bugs and have no timeline if any for a fix.

Do all of you wish the bugs just go unresolved?

AI could also help speed up development, True it's only as good as its source information given but it learns quickly and is capable of self learning.

You clearly have no idea how AI is being used in software development. What a delusion this comment is.

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

We AI is a wonderful tool. They could put the entirety of the game into it and it could far quicker than a human decern were the bugs first started. And run simulations to see what addition actually caused the bug. Testing is still a must, and humans still needed.
What examples of AI doing poorly in this game do you have to share? Could you please share some examples.

Because ZOS has recently admitted they are perplexed with most of these bugs and have no timeline if any for a fix.

Do all of you wish the bugs just go unresolved?

AI could also help speed up development, True it's only as good as its source information given but it learns quickly and is capable of self learning.

You clearly have no idea how AI is being used in software development. What a delusion this comment is.

You should add something and explain why that's the case then, otherwise you can just stick to "I disagree". Just saying they're wrong and calling them delusional isn't an argument. I see nothing delusional about their comment, many here are speaking generally because very few here actually work with AI and can only speak vaguely or in generalizations. Like yourself for instance.

I posted a link to an article on page 1 (post 25) which gives a good overview of how AI coding agents work. That would be a good place to start if you were curious about this.