Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us

> But would it have improved my comprehension? The research says no.

I don’t know, I find myself doing things I would’ve never done before AI.

I find myself doing more projects outside of work.

I discover new problem domains and are less afraid of tackling the unknown.

I code in languages I don’t know and start learning how they work.

I can get anything explained to me, at any time, in a somewhat coherent manner, by a tutor that won’t get tired or annoyed.

Look— I’m not exactly thinking AI is free of criticism, but it’s definitely a revolution in access to information and at least to me that’s a big deal.

I mean, I'm concerned about the societal impacts too, but this article is pure nonsense as far as how useful today's AI tools are. I know multiple people with very high paid jobs who have told me they simply couldn't do that job now without AI. I create software much quicker and better than I have in the past 40 years using AI tools. I've learned all kinds of things technical and otherwise from LLMs. This writing is about as useful as the people who said calculators would mean nobody understands mathematics, or that watching tv would turn everyone into a zombie (obviously it was smart phones that did that).

My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured.

At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing.

> [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions

This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular executable code, and then someone still needs to audit the code whenever it changes. The core LLM algorithms simply don't have room for the distinction.

> Complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments

Grandiosity++, where does "the architecture" actually end?

Really? Interacting with an LLM feels like stepping on a slug. It's just gross.

> A study by MIT found that students who use AI to write show far less brain activity than those who used classic Google searching (with AI off) or those who used neither. Other studies find that students who use AI retain far less of the information that ends up in their writing, possibly as a result of “cognitive offloading” and “cognitive surrender.”

I'm unconvinced that AI will make us all dumber. In the public perception, at least among students, AI is viewed as a cheating tool. What kinds of students gravitate towards cheating tools to complete their coursework?

On the other hand, the opportunity for AI to act as a personal tutor, meeting you at your own skill and knowledge level, is limitless.