You might think using a chatbot to think for you just makes you dumber — or that chatbots are especially favored by people who never liked thinking in the first place. It turns out the bot users re…
It was already known that “users with access to GenAI tools produce a less diverse set of outcomes for the same task.”
Why is this portrayed as a bad thing? Correct answers are correct answers. The only thing LLMs typically are bad at, are things that are seldom discussed or have some ambiguity behind them. So long as users understand the limitations of AI and understand when and where to trust them - then why is their diversity in output a bad thing?
Regularly we seek uniformity in output in order to better handle its output in tasks further down. I don’t see this as a bad thing at all.
Correct answers are correct answers. The only thing LLMs typically are bad at, are things that are seldom discussed or have some ambiguity behind them.
Lol what, how many questions you ask in your life are entirely unambiguous and devoid of nuance? That sounds like a you issue.
I have read the paper, how about not immediately jumping to the condescending, patronizing tone?
Also, you didn’t answer the question. It simply says “users with access to GenAI tools”. You’ve added your own qualifications separate from the question at hand.
Why is this portrayed as a bad thing? Correct answers are correct answers. The only thing LLMs typically are bad at, are things that are seldom discussed or have some ambiguity behind them. So long as users understand the limitations of AI and understand when and where to trust them - then why is their diversity in output a bad thing?
Regularly we seek uniformity in output in order to better handle its output in tasks further down. I don’t see this as a bad thing at all.
Lol what, how many questions you ask in your life are entirely unambiguous and devoid of nuance? That sounds like a you issue.
yeah no wonder you’re a racist cunt
others have said the bits that matter already, but for my part: what in the fuck kind of post is this
why don’t you look at the paper then and find out
you should be so lucky
this isn’t those people
I have read the paper, how about not immediately jumping to the condescending, patronizing tone?
Also, you didn’t answer the question. It simply says “users with access to GenAI tools”. You’ve added your own qualifications separate from the question at hand.
how about you go fuck yourself
is everything. including summarizing research since it’s pretty fucking obvious you didn’t read shit. now fuck off
also, holy fuck their post history is essentially nothing but unsubtle dogwhistles and pro-AI garbage
lol the nazi sees nothing wrong with LLMs of course
…I did it again. I looked.
oof.
The condescension and patronisation is well deserved. Your question is answered in the fucking title of the paper.
If you’d ever engaged in critical thinking, then maybe we could have avoided this exercise.