I dont use AI chatbots because of all the harmful byproducts: putting a massive load energy, being used for malicious purposes, people pushing it on the world. No thanks, its not worth investing is something that might end up destroying the planet, we already got enough of that. Plus I really don't need it. Im doing just fine with out it. I feel bad for people that have to use it in the work place. I don't like something this powerful under the umbrella of for-profit corporations.
People put too much faith in organizations that depend on commercializing everything,
This is what truly sucks about AI, the centralisation. It's pay-to-play, opaque, and just waiting for the enshitification shoe to drop. The exact opposite of what tech can and should be.
This sounds like a term from an Arthur C. Clarke novel. Also reminds me of Urasawa Naoki's Pluto.
> Information Utility Burnout
These days, every time I search for something, I have to use 100% of my brain just to work out which results are slops and which are not, even on Kagi. A few days ago, I had to search for something on Google without an adblocker. It was a remarkable experience. Like, 60% of my screen were ads or AI slops.
One of the most infuriating things about AI for me is it's behavioral mirroring patterns. I rather enjoy the conversational interface but after about two prompts it starts mirroring my behavior, my word pattern and choice, etc... I hate that, I hate it when humans do it and I hate it even more when AI does it.
Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.
This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.
Good point. When you think about it, it's the same interaction patterns we get from social media, i.e., maximizing engagement, dopamine loops, and addiction.
I find Opus 4.6 tends to get a bit short with me if I keep asking for confirmation. It will end up giving me responses like "yes, so go do it". Which is a stark contrast to Anthropic LLMs previous behaviours of endlessly glazing me.
And it did end up helping me make a nice chicken dinner the other day, so thanks AI.
"AI disclosure: I don’t use AI to do my writing. The words you see here are mine. I do use Gemini 3.1 Pro, multiple flavors of Claude 4.6, and/or OpenAI GPT 5.2 via Kagi Assistant (disclosure: my son works at Kagi) — backed up by both Kagi Search, Google Search, and phone calls to research and fact-check. I used a word processing application called Lex, which has AI tools, and after writing the column, I used Lex’s grammar checking tools to hunt for typos and errors and suggest word changes."
What a journey. Just say you use AI to do your writing. It's ok, or at least it's preferable to the above, which is just "I always read the linked sources on the Wikipedia article" for the 2020s.
I don't blame him. Professional writers are so afraid of being accused of producing AI slop that no one uses em dashes anymore, and people leave spelling errors just to be authentic.
I suppose we are all caught up in this, but it is almost tragic to see that we are fetishizing the last mile of text. Research is a real part of the writing process. Spelling and grammar fixes are real parts of the writing process.
I guess it’s not their fault. I did put in a comment somewhere else. “beep Boop. I am a robot” and I’m being punished for it.
I dont use AI chatbots because of all the harmful byproducts: putting a massive load energy, being used for malicious purposes, people pushing it on the world. No thanks, its not worth investing is something that might end up destroying the planet, we already got enough of that. Plus I really don't need it. Im doing just fine with out it. I feel bad for people that have to use it in the work place. I don't like something this powerful under the umbrella of for-profit corporations.
People put too much faith in organizations that depend on commercializing everything,
This is what truly sucks about AI, the centralisation. It's pay-to-play, opaque, and just waiting for the enshitification shoe to drop. The exact opposite of what tech can and should be.
> Deathbot Incongruence Anxiety
This sounds like a term from an Arthur C. Clarke novel. Also reminds me of Urasawa Naoki's Pluto.
> Information Utility Burnout
These days, every time I search for something, I have to use 100% of my brain just to work out which results are slops and which are not, even on Kagi. A few days ago, I had to search for something on Google without an adblocker. It was a remarkable experience. Like, 60% of my screen were ads or AI slops.
One of the most infuriating things about AI for me is it's behavioral mirroring patterns. I rather enjoy the conversational interface but after about two prompts it starts mirroring my behavior, my word pattern and choice, etc... I hate that, I hate it when humans do it and I hate it even more when AI does it.
Most general purpose AI systems seem built around continuing engagement rather than providing best possible answers. This is absolutely an unhealthy thing because it takes the people most at risk of being unable to recognize this behavior in AI and then reinforcing whatever that is they're talking about.
This is absolutely unhealthy and it is a conscious choice by the AI overlords. Because they fully have the ability to put in a filters or adjustments based upon their ethical guidelines. For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines. I've seen some AIs that have ethical guidelines that specifically contradict the truth.
Good point. When you think about it, it's the same interaction patterns we get from social media, i.e., maximizing engagement, dopamine loops, and addiction.
>For whatever reason prioritizing the truth at the best effort possible isn't one of the ethical guidelines.
Far less people want to hear the truth than you'd want to believe.
I tell mine to talk like but not make any references to Commander Data from Star Trek. It's the only style that doesn't infuriate me.
The information bubbles strengthen
I find Opus 4.6 tends to get a bit short with me if I keep asking for confirmation. It will end up giving me responses like "yes, so go do it". Which is a stark contrast to Anthropic LLMs previous behaviours of endlessly glazing me.
And it did end up helping me make a nice chicken dinner the other day, so thanks AI.
"AI disclosure: I don’t use AI to do my writing. The words you see here are mine. I do use Gemini 3.1 Pro, multiple flavors of Claude 4.6, and/or OpenAI GPT 5.2 via Kagi Assistant (disclosure: my son works at Kagi) — backed up by both Kagi Search, Google Search, and phone calls to research and fact-check. I used a word processing application called Lex, which has AI tools, and after writing the column, I used Lex’s grammar checking tools to hunt for typos and errors and suggest word changes."
What a journey. Just say you use AI to do your writing. It's ok, or at least it's preferable to the above, which is just "I always read the linked sources on the Wikipedia article" for the 2020s.
I don't blame him. Professional writers are so afraid of being accused of producing AI slop that no one uses em dashes anymore, and people leave spelling errors just to be authentic.
I suppose we are all caught up in this, but it is almost tragic to see that we are fetishizing the last mile of text. Research is a real part of the writing process. Spelling and grammar fixes are real parts of the writing process.
I guess it’s not their fault. I did put in a comment somewhere else. “beep Boop. I am a robot” and I’m being punished for it.