Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

highplainsdem

(59,239 posts)
33. I emphasized writing for yourself because writing is critical to thinking and shouldn't be turned over
Sat Nov 22, 2025, 08:47 PM
Nov 22

to generative AI. The organizing that goes into writing is critical to thinking. It isn't just getting "ink on paper" that then just needs some editing to make it your own. Too many students using AI that way now are never learning how to organize their thoughts and communicate effectively.

This is important to me because I've been discussing this for years with educators upset by how genAI is dumbing users down. I've read thousands of articles on AI over the last few years, posted hundreds of threads about it here, and also posted a lot about it elsewhere. Besides the dumbing down of users, there's the theft of intellectual property used to train AI tools, which IMO makes them fundamentally unethical to use. Huge issue. Then there's the environmental damage, the waste of money on the AI bubble, etc.

GenAI isn't like earlier tech. It's much more harmful.

I have nothing against tech in general. I first got a PC and first got online - and moderated a forum on politics and technology - in the mid-1980s. Before there was a world wide web, when I had to subscribe to three different online services to keep in touch with people for personal and business reasons. I still appreciated the convenience. Thought word processing software was wonderful. Ditto laser jet printers, though they were expensive then (equivalent to a few thousand today, but computers were also much more expensive then).

Those tools didn't dumb users down and do their thinking for them, and leave them remembering less.

That tech didn't hallucinate while sounding convincing. Didn't have to be checked on every detail because, although it sounded rational, it wasn't.

I'm skeptical of AI transcription being used, wary of doctors using it, because of the errors it can make, and how hard it can be to catch the errors. I've seen too many articles on errors made by AI transcription to consider it trustworthy, with LLMs not just mangling what was said, but adding statements that weren't made, even adding people to meetings when they weren't there.

I'm sorry you're going to need that surgery.

I was my mom's caregiver for years, took her to lots of doctors' appointments. I'll admit I didn't take notes. I do have a very good memory, and I could catch conflicting/wrong advice.

If I were in your situation, I'd probably take notes from a recording, rather than AI transcription, to get the most important details as well as anything important about tone of voice. They have done studies showing notes taken by hand are remembered best.

If you simply can't remember, if you have to have a full transcript, I guess you feel you have to use AI, though it is necessary to check every word.

They had transcription software decades ago, well before LLMs and genAI trained on stolen intellectual property. The Dragon dictation software doctors used goes back a few decades, for instance. It made mistakes, but genAI still does, and at least the older software didn't invent conversations that didn't happen and people that weren't there.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Only for those who take it at face value. I immediately expect something to be wrong-- at least partially and hlthe2b Nov 22 #1
Yes that's the totally sensible approach ... to distrust the information until it has been corroborated FakeNoose Nov 22 #25
Also understand how low even that bar was. Remember the disdain for "Google University" RockRaven Nov 22 #2
I've seen so many people posting "I ran this by Chat GPT and this is what it came up with" or chia Nov 22 #3
That is so cringe-worthy to me. I can't believe how uncritically people have accepted this Iris Nov 22 #10
If you're going to use AI... ultralite001 Nov 22 #4
It's Cliff Notes in a new incarnation. Speedy and shallow. IMO. nt allegorical oracle Nov 22 #5
I'll bet Cliff Notes at least had 'some' human review. And the notes were revised over the years. erronis Nov 22 #11
Sure ... the Cliff Notes were written by live humans FakeNoose Nov 22 #26
;-{) Goonch Nov 22 #6
Whatever chatbot(s?) generated that AI-promoting AI slop answer for you makes no reference at all highplainsdem Nov 22 #9
Please don't tell other people what to post. Jack Valentino Nov 23 #40
This is a message board for people to communicate, not a display for AI slop. If it's treated as acceptable highplainsdem Nov 23 #41
Yeah, we all have our crosses to bear.... Jack Valentino Nov 23 #42
It was a request saying please, not an order. As for your availing yourself of the technology - it's unlikely highplainsdem Nov 23 #43
I put my use of any technology whatsoever which will help me to oppose TRUMP Jack Valentino Nov 24 #44
Kick SheltieLover Nov 22 #7
Thanks! highplainsdem Nov 22 #21
Yw. Ty for being our resident expert on ai slop! SheltieLover Nov 22 #22
Doing a google search is hardly the best way to learn something to begin with... Wounded Bear Nov 22 #8
I have been using Google's 'NotebookLM', I think with good results. rog Nov 22 #12
Why aren't you writing those reports yourself, if they're supposedly from you? And why do you want highplainsdem Nov 22 #20
I'm not sure I'm communicating effectively. rog Nov 22 #27
I emphasized writing for yourself because writing is critical to thinking and shouldn't be turned over highplainsdem Nov 22 #33
OK. It's clear that your reading comprehension is limited, since we - apparently - agree ... rog Nov 22 #34
You ignored my pointing out that genAI tools are fundamentally unethical because they're trained illegally highplainsdem Nov 22 #35
You're just a wealth of information, aren't you? rog Nov 23 #36
If you had spent a bit more time simply googling, you'd have learned quickly for yourself that natural highplainsdem Nov 23 #37
(sigh) re: your assumptions about my diet ... vegan since about 1974 ... rog Nov 23 #38
Sigh. I haven't "singled you out" - I've posted hundreds of threads here on the pitfalls of using genAI, highplainsdem Nov 23 #39
I like going down the research holes of Wikipedia, pubmed, phys.org, Medscape, etc. erronis Nov 22 #13
Butlerian Jihad... BurnDoubt Nov 22 #14
This!!! paleotn Nov 22 #19
The ship has sailed. Professors are using it now Sympthsical Nov 22 #15
And there are more and more studies showing how harmful AI is, how much it dumbs users down. highplainsdem Nov 22 #23
We've said the same about social media Sympthsical Nov 22 #24
It's the end of humanity. We're doomed. QueerDuck Nov 22 #16
Dumb comparisons, and you know it. Or should. highplainsdem Nov 22 #18
so much wrong with AI barbtries Nov 22 #17
You can also create your own 'custom' search engine to do that ... rog Nov 22 #30
Seen on one of my fitness sites last spring: CrispyQ Nov 22 #28
Butlerian Jihad... BurnDoubt Nov 22 #29
OOPS!!! BurnDoubt Nov 22 #31
Seems Obvious OC375 Nov 22 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Something Disturbing Happ...»Reply #33