30
Will AI make thinking extinct?
(archive.is)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
30 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
553 readers
387 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
before i get strawmanned: no i dont think "AI" (by which i mean LLMs like chatgpt) is anywhere close to being as good/useful as writing. Still:
im sick of the exaggeration about this stuff, writing didnt kill thinking, google search didnt kill thinking, and these LLMs wont kill thinking either
realized just now this was posted to c/slop so this isnt directed at you OP
I think the hype is on the down swing. It seems they're gonna try again with newer, more mathematically efficient models or something. Telling ppl not to worry about this shit will always be an uphill battle bc not only are the hype-men, salesmen, and the bougies trying to scare the public & their workers w/ this stuff. Ppl that should really know better have also convinced themselves.
I feel as though the creator of Nodejs (a monumental step forward for Javascript and a technology that helps websites like these run) would be able to think introspectively and accept that intelligence is far more complex than a complex statistical model but I am wrong
people most often believe what they want to believe so what this says to me is that even though he is very smart, he wants to believe we have figured out/are on the very cusp of figuring out GAI so he is much more inclined to take evidence that suggests that supports what he wants to believe (OMG LOOK THEY PASSED THE TURING TEST!?!?!?) at face value rather than thinking about whether the turing test is actually even a valid way of determining this kind of thing or not.
also, even more cynically, agi being around the corner would increase his own station as an AIvangelist and tech person of note (more TED-style talks in front of other bespectacled 30-50 year olds)
yeah he could always be literally lying to make more money if he's involved in the industry lol