16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Wouldn't accept that it was wrong. And if one lacks the capability to question one's results, then how can one possibly advance?

Indeed, so what was wrong?

On 2/25/2026 at 10:26 PM, sethoflagos said:

Wouldn't accept that it was wrong. And if one lacks the capability to question one's results, then how can one possibly advance?

I’m noticing this exact pattern on the side of many users as well. They’re being told by their AI that they’ve stumbled across some amazing idea or another, and then the AI actively reinforces this to keep the user hooked - irrespective of whether there is actual value in the original idea or not. Because let’s face it, this is the only reason these tools even exist in the public domain - to get the user to spend as much time on them as possible, same as social media. It’s a business model, not some altruistic public service. AI isn’t designed to champion objective truth, it’s designed to increase screen time.

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m noticing this exact pattern on the side of many users as well. They’re being told by their AI that they’ve stumbled across some amazing idea or another, and then the AI actively reinforces this to keep the user hooked - irrespective of whether there is actual value in the original idea or not. Because let’s face it, this is the only reason these tools even exist in the public domain - to get the user to spend as much time on them as possible, same as social media. It’s a business model, not some altruistic public service. AI isn’t designed to champion objective truth, it’s designed to increase screen time.

But we are seeing the beginning of societal push back (Australia et al), which means the AI designer's will be forced towards a more altruistic initial objective; hopefully with a rinse repeat cycle, that will error correct when the automatic biased initial conditions are set.

Step by step towards the potential hope that AI is friendlyish and the memes won't lead us to armageddon.

On 2/24/2026 at 8:20 AM, dimreepr said:

The media is muddying the waters though, it only takes notice of the negative effects, like the guy who formed an intimate relationship with a relatively primitive AI chatbot, which reinforced his delusion about assasinating Queen liz II with a crossbow.

For every example of that type of extreme human behaviour, there will be an example of an extreme at the other end of the spectrum.

Most of us don't need a rampant influence to be a luddite... 😉

That doesn’t speak to a success rate worthy of widespread adoption. Expecting better doesn’t make one a Luddite. >30 years ago Intel was forced to recall a processor because it returned errors that only mattered in high-precision calculations, that happened only rarely (“Byte magazine estimated that 1 in 9 billion floating point divides with random parameters would produce inaccurate results” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug) because we expected computers to give the right answer, but now we get the insistence that we must lower expectations because of bad marketing that over-promises and under-delivers.

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’m noticing this exact pattern on the side of many users as well. They’re being told by their AI that they’ve stumbled across some amazing idea or another, and then the AI actively reinforces this to keep the user hooked - irrespective of whether there is actual value in the original idea or not. Because let’s face it, this is the only reason these tools even exist in the public domain - to get the user to spend as much time on them as possible, same as social media. It’s a business model, not some altruistic public service. AI isn’t designed to champion objective truth, it’s designed to increase screen time.

Just this morning, I had an AI search try to "please" me by misquoting HL Mencken (famous American journalist). The AI had somehow linked all the times that our president has been called a moron and a narcissist, and so the Mencken letter in which he says someday America will elect a complete moron (written in 1920, his remarks primarily aimed at Warren Harding who was then running for president) is misquoted as "narcissistic moron." So the AI invents a quote which sounds even more prescient than it already was. (The whole letter is worth reading, and seems very relevant to now, but that's OT for this thread)

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But we are seeing the beginning of societal push back (Australia et al),

I am very much looking forward on how it is implemented and what effects it might have. Anecdotally, pretty much every of the top students I talked to had some limit on screen time or were older before they got their first cell phone.