Electricity isn’t a vital resource either, humans have lived without it for most of existence

I use AI tools all the time. It works well under supervision for things that should be relatively trivial but not enough for a human to do it quickly. It is also nowhere near good enough for unsupervised programming. A lot of times it can’t even get the commit messages right, which misleading commit messages are worse than lazy commit messages. See this official OpenClaw Nix repo, and as you can see it also struggles to do tasks as basic as making a readable README.md file, which the fact that it can’t even do that convinced me that the entire OpenClaw project is snakeoil. For prompt injection vulnerabilities, even their own project has that:

1. Check if Determinate Nix is installed (if not, install it)

Not really, only like a third of eligible voters did

Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is “are they being truthful?”

Yes that is a large part of what I meant by what are their intentions. If you can reasonably conclude that their that their intended goal will probably involve progressively restricting this area of legislation (whether through implications from their statements or the possibility of them not being truthful), then it is not a slippery slope fallacy.

Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy.

What do you think their intentions are, and why?

YouTube does police their platform, they curate it for babies and remove anything critical of the government

The slop it generates is more useful that the slop it reads though, and there aren’t really many places that aren’t slop nowadays

This is why I use AI for search now. Even with Kagi most of the results are massive hunks of either AI or human generated slop, so I might as well just generate the slop myself and get something more concise, and when the AI does do search it can filter through the bullshit a lot faster

If you add a couple O’s it means turds in English too

Next it will be Omarchy

Unlike modern reddit at least it has them

You still need to know what to search, ideally have some background information on the topic and the sources themselves so you know what the sources are talking about and their reputation, read through a bunch of sources to find that most or all of their content is not relevant to what you’re looking for, follow links to better sources, etc. It’s easier if you’re aiming to become an expert in something, but especially if you’re starting from scratch or it’s for a topic you’ll never tough again, AI turns a 3 hour task into a 10 minute task for the same outcome. It uses less compute power than search engines to go to a library and ask librarians for books on a topic then read those books, yet people use search engines because it’s much faster that way.

That’s a great question, why didn’t you? Maybe schools should teach that.

Well for example Wikipedia might link to a book that costs money or an article that’s paywalled. Which for serious research it might be worth paying for but not for a random essay.

Then ask it for the source for the search results and verify it yourself obviously

Remember encyclopedias shouldn’t be your primary source

What if you can’t get access to the primary source?

There’s an anti-AI filter for uBlacklist

Learning how to construct logical arguments, do research that makes sense, and communicate effectively to the right audience, all of which AI writing sucks at.

There is no reason to avoid getting better at writing.

Having better things to do is a valid reason.

The first source for research is AI.

AI with search capabilities is actually helpful for that.

Probably strong influence from corporations, billionaires, other wealthy people, and NIMBYs, along with fearmongering from establishment media to distract from actual problems. And Democrats realizing they can’t win on a pro-genocide platform so now they have to at least pretend to give a shit.