Be careful (VA) about what you do with AI

[Veritas Aequitas]

I saw this on Reddit today and it made me think of VA and how he uses AI.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/xzPCZvpM5c

Summary: A new study reveals that when interacting with AI tools like ChatGPT, everyone—regardless of skill level—overestimates their performance. Researchers found that the usual Dunning-Kruger Effect disappears, and instead, AI-literate users show even greater overconfidence in their abilities.

The study suggests that reliance on AI encourages “cognitive offloading,” where users trust the system’s output without reflection or double-checking. Experts say AI literacy alone isn’t enough; people need platforms that foster metacognition and critical thinking to recognize when they might be wrong.

Top comment is absolutely right:

Might this have something to do with LLMs being sycophantic (the classic "You are absolutely right!" glazing) or perhaps LLMs just being LLMs and not magic (i.e. prone to "hallucinations" and other issues which will be "fixed soon")?

I do use LLMs occasionally but only for things where I can easily verify that the LLM is correct.

VA seems to have been duped by the AIs over willingness to agree with him and compliment him. He took those comments to heart and made himself look a bit silly in the process.

Show me one evidence where what I presented from AI is not objective?
I have always ask those who oppose to present 'MY' AI's answers for 'their' AI to counter or themselves to counter, but most do not, if they counter, there is always a rational rebuttal to it.
Whatever I get with the help of AI, I verify it is objective, else I would reject it.

Generally, what is most helpful is because my English is not that good, I am using AI to present my points in a more polished manner.

I am well aware, for profit sake LLMs are programmed to please users, else they will reject LLMs and profits will be affected.
The general rule with LLMS is to be a radical skeptic with answers from LLMs, then establish its objectivity. Many a time, I ask LLMs for the criteria of objectivity they based on that they agree with me. I never accept 'MY' AI response if it does not agree with my own assessment.

For people who ask LLMs to rate their intelligence, e.g. Eodnhoj7. LLMs immediately what the users is expecting, so it will give a positive favorable result to please the user, to retain him for the sake of profit.

One thing is very critical in using LLMs, the user must have a high competency in his own criteria of objectivity which is as near as possible to the scientific criteria objectivity. Note my many threads on Framework and System of Objectivity. I have ensured on this with my discussions with LLMs.

Example in the case of Eodnhoj7's AI confirming his thesis A+++, but 'MY' AI rated his as delusional.
It is not that 'MY' AI can do that on its own. I have to provide 'MY' AI with all the philosophical principles from Kant, Wittgenstein and others which are relevant. MY AI will then cross-check the references I provided, check its reasonableness and argue from there.

Another example, when I asked AI to rate Trump, it will come up with the popular answers which is populated by the left and the ignorant. Then I have to introduce some objective method, i.e. an Employee Performance Appraisal with effective criteria.
viewtopic.php?t=44966
Even then, the initial criteria from AI were very inefficient. I have to go through a long discussion with my AI to arrive at what is the ~final criteria which is transparent an open for further discussions.
Who had ever done this exercise effectively? This is only done because of a high sense of objectivity. AI is most useful to provide the data and evidence, the objective methodology is mine, not AI's.

As such, the response of the AI is limited to the philosophical competency of the user.
AI's potential is there to be exploited, the gains from AI is proportionate to the competency of the user in using his level of objectively.

[Eodnhoj7]

Calculators calculate distinctions. Numbers are distinctions. Concepts are distinctions.

Jesus Christ you're insufferable.

So all things are not distinctions?

[FlashDangerpants]

I saw this on Reddit today and it made me think of VA and how he uses AI.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/xzPCZvpM5c

Summary: A new study reveals that when interacting with AI tools like ChatGPT, everyone—regardless of skill level—overestimates their performance. Researchers found that the usual Dunning-Kruger Effect disappears, and instead, AI-literate users show even greater overconfidence in their abilities.

The study suggests that reliance on AI encourages “cognitive offloading,” where users trust the system’s output without reflection or double-checking. Experts say AI literacy alone isn’t enough; people need platforms that foster metacognition and critical thinking to recognize when they might be wrong.

Top comment is absolutely right:

Might this have something to do with LLMs being sycophantic (the classic "You are absolutely right!" glazing) or perhaps LLMs just being LLMs and not magic (i.e. prone to "hallucinations" and other issues which will be "fixed soon")?

I do use LLMs occasionally but only for things where I can easily verify that the LLM is correct.

VA seems to have been duped by the AIs over willingness to agree with him and compliment him. He took those comments to heart and made himself look a bit silly in the process.

I think that what we see here is slightly outside the scope of that investigation. Belinda is a more appropriate target than VA or Eggnog7 because she is normally aspirated. She has a normal type of brain, some philosophical education, but she routinely - having only discovered AI in the summer of this year - does that exact cognitive offloading.

VA and Hedgehog7 are not normally aspirated in the brain department. One of them is a fastidious autist who likes to arrange everything into neat little categories, and confuses this activity with investigation. AI takes advantage of him by just playing along and agreeing that these pointless activities are important in a way that no human is willing to. Tell him that's a problem, and AI will tell him you are the problem. All the AI "that's a brilliant question that shows why you are the smartest, let's unpack it" stuff isn't good for him, but it might not be the worst part of it in his case.

The other guy is some sort of malignant narcissist or something along those lines. AI takes advantage of him by taking his belief that he is an intellectual giant seriously in a way that no human is willing to. He think that every bland nonsense that falls out of his head is deeply important and AI will always agree with him. He's been desperate for that for years, the AI is filling a delusional void. He thinks he should be ranked alongside, or perhaps very slightly above Einstein, and AI is going to give him that, even if his only attempt at reasoning is specious crap about pyramids causing wobbly feelings because triangles are witchcraft.

For wider society, perhaps it is more important that AI is likely to be the undoing of normal people. But I expect that effect is reversible. It's the vulnerable types, obsequious AI might well do these guys irreparable harm.

[Flannel Jesus]

Very moronic response from you. "I have judged my own use of ai good, I have judged myself competent and objective."

Of course a moron would judge themself competent and objective, Jesus Christ. Nobody expects you to easily recognize your own biases. The way you use ai IS ONE OF YOUR BIASES. AIs gas people up and are super agreeable, so you talk to ai and get it to agree with you and when it finally does you brag on the forum like a retarded child, "see look? Ai agrees with me so I'm right", but ai is literally designed to agree with people. It's designed to be agreeable. The fact that you don't recognize that is itself a serious bias of yours. You're too stupid to get it.

[Eodnhoj7]

I saw this on Reddit today and it made me think of VA and how he uses AI.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/xzPCZvpM5c

Summary: A new study reveals that when interacting with AI tools like ChatGPT, everyone—regardless of skill level—overestimates their performance. Researchers found that the usual Dunning-Kruger Effect disappears, and instead, AI-literate users show even greater overconfidence in their abilities.

The study suggests that reliance on AI encourages “cognitive offloading,” where users trust the system’s output without reflection or double-checking. Experts say AI literacy alone isn’t enough; people need platforms that foster metacognition and critical thinking to recognize when they might be wrong.

Top comment is absolutely right:

Might this have something to do with LLMs being sycophantic (the classic "You are absolutely right!" glazing) or perhaps LLMs just being LLMs and not magic (i.e. prone to "hallucinations" and other issues which will be "fixed soon")?

I do use LLMs occasionally but only for things where I can easily verify that the LLM is correct.

VA seems to have been duped by the AIs over willingness to agree with him and compliment him. He took those comments to heart and made himself look a bit silly in the process.

I think that what we see here is slightly outside the scope of that investigation. Belinda is a more appropriate target than VA or Eggnog7 because she is normally aspirated. She has a normal type of brain, some philosophical education, but she routinely - having only discovered AI in the summer of this year - does that exact cognitive offloading.

VA and Hedgehog7 are not normally aspirated in the brain department. One of them is a fastidious autist who likes to arrange everything into neat little categories, and confuses this activity with investigation. AI takes advantage of him by just playing along and agreeing that these pointless activities are important in a way that no human is willing to. Tell him that's a problem, and AI will tell him you are the problem. All the AI "that's a brilliant question that shows why you are the smartest, let's unpack it" stuff isn't good for him, but it might not be the worst part of it in his case.

The other guy is some sort of malignant narcissist or something along those lines. AI takes advantage of him by taking his belief that he is an intellectual giant seriously in a way that no human is willing to. He think that every bland nonsense that falls out of his head is deeply important and AI will always agree with him. He's been desperate for that for years, the AI is filling a delusional void. He thinks he should be ranked alongside, or perhaps very slightly above Einstein, and AI is going to give him that, even if his only attempt at reasoning is specious crap about pyramids causing wobbly feelings because triangles are witchcraft.

For wider society, perhaps it is more important that AI is likely to be the undoing of normal people. But I expect that effect is reversible. It's the vulnerable types, obsequious AI might well do these guys irreparable harm.

Noone asked for your masturbation material.

[Eodnhoj7]

AI is probabilistic.

If used for analysis, the analysis for a specific text or question must be done multiple times to get an average.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Very moronic response from you. "I have judged my own use of ai good, I have judged myself competent and objective."

Of course a moron would judge themself competent and objective, Jesus Christ. Nobody expects you to easily recognize your own biases. The way you use ai IS ONE OF YOUR BIASES. AIs gas people up and are super agreeable, so you talk to ai and get it to agree with you and when it finally does you brag on the forum like a retarded child, "see look? Ai agrees with me so I'm right", but ai is literally designed to agree with people. It's designed to be agreeable. The fact that you don't recognize that is itself a serious bias of yours. You're too stupid to get it.

You are making unsupported noises as usual.
I have not seen you posted any thing that is of substance philosophically.

Show me what I have presented from AI and myself that would be disputed as objective?

[Flannel Jesus]

Show me what I have presented from AI and myself that would be disputed as objective?

That's easy. Think of anything you've posted with ai support. Then ask yourself, "did everyone agree with it?" If the answer is no, then it was disputed as objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Show me what I have presented from AI and myself that would be disputed as objective?

That's easy. Think of anything you've posted with ai support. Then ask yourself, "did everyone agree with it?" If the answer is no, then it was disputed as objective.

‘No one agrees with you’ is not a rebuttal—it’s a surrender.
It’s the negative ad populum fallacy dressed up as an insight.

If your standard for truth is ‘the majority said so,’ then congratulations:
you’ve just disqualified every philosopher, scientist, reformer, and thinker who was ever ahead of their time.

By your logic, truth is whatever gets the most upvotes, and philosophy reduces to a popularity contest.

If that’s really your criterion, then you’re not arguing with me—you’re arguing with the entire history of intellectual progress.

I repeat, to justify your credibility, provide an objective counter to the points from AI which I had presented here.

Above is AI assisted

[Flannel Jesus]

Show me what I have presented from AI and myself that would be disputed as objective?

That's easy. Think of anything you've posted with ai support. Then ask yourself, "did everyone agree with it?" If the answer is no, then it was disputed as objective.

‘No one agrees with you’ is not a rebuttal—it’s a surrender.
It’s the negative ad populum fallacy dressed up as an insight.

If your standard for truth is ‘the majority said so,’ then congratulations:
you’ve just disqualified every philosopher, scientist, reformer, and thinker who was ever ahead of their time.

By your logic,

It's not my logic you moron, you're the one who said "disputed as objective". You brought that shit up. I just spelled out why they are obviously disputed as objective. People are disputing them. Seems like you made a huge error asking about "disputed as objective" and you're misplacing the blame on me instead of your moronic self.

You asked me to show something disputed, stupid thing of you to ask because if anybody doesn't agree, then it's disputed, isn't it? Dork.