[andymasley]

I'm really confused about what you're reading into this. I don't "equate" nuclear weapons with video games, I say "here are two completely unrelated things that I'd consider net bad overall, but useful in specific places." Would you say I'm equating guns with balloons if I say they're both man-made? It's hard not to think you're intentionally misreading this.

Yes, it is possible for something to be useful in specific circumstances but still be bad overall.

We have disagreements about what counts as useful. If our definition is "This is only useful if it leads to longterm happiness" that seems way too specific and would exclude too much.

It's stupid to cheat, I agree and try to make that clear. What I'm saying is the claim "Students think they're learning when they cheat using AI" assumes students are so stupid that they think cheating off of a robot will help them learn as much as writing an essay themselves. That's obviously wrong.

[bpt3]

> I'm really confused about what you're reading into this. I don't "equate" nuclear weapons with video games, I say "here are two completely unrelated things that I'd consider net bad overall, but useful in specific places." Would you say I'm equating guns with balloons if I say they're both man-made? It's hard not to think you're intentionally misreading this.

You provided a list of things you don't think should exist, which is equating them on some level to me, but okay. That context matters, which is why your "guns and balloons" example isn't meaningful.

Ultimately, I'm reading into this that you're deflecting from your actual point that you can't really defend by only bringing up nuclear weapons as a response to a statement about all the other items on that list of things that you think should be banned.

> Yes, it is possible for something to be useful in specific circumstances but still be bad overall.

Of course. No one is disputing that. That doesn't mean that things in that category should be banned outright, because it would make no sense to do so in many cases. Therefore, regulation exists.

> We have disagreements about what counts as useful. If our definition is "This is only useful if it leads to longterm happiness" that seems way too specific and would exclude too much.

You seem to disagree with nearly every person interacting with you (and the rest of us don't disagree with each other) about the definition of "useful" and a couple other key words, which really makes it hard to discuss your content. Even more so when you refuse to provide an explanation of what seems to be a very obvious contradiction in your reasoning.

FYI, no one I saw is using the definition you provided above either, which would be another very unusual definition of the term.

> It's stupid to cheat, I agree and try to make that clear. What I'm saying is the claim "Students think they're learning when they cheat using AI" assumes students are so stupid that they think cheating off of a robot will help them learn as much as writing an essay themselves. That's obviously wrong.

That is wrong, and no one I'm aware of is claiming that, so I have no idea what the point would be of arguing against it.

If you care to explain your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly now in order to continue the discussion, feel free. Otherwise, I'll leave you to continue to beat on your strawmen (there are at least 3 in this response alone) in peace.

[andymasley]

Basically everything I think is here, I think this is all pretty simple and straightforward: https://open.substack.com/pub/andymasley/p/ai-can-be-bad-ove...

If you bought a hammer and never used it, so it never actually improved yourself, would you say the hammer itself isn't "useful"?

[bpt3]

> Basically everything I think is here, I think this is all pretty simple and straightforward: https://open.substack.com/pub/andymasley/p/ai-can-be-bad-ove...

It's very clear that you're way more interested in avoiding any serious discussion of your position, because the entire premise of that article (anyone questioning why you use chatGPT is saying all chatbots are completely useless, and that a meaningful number of people you interact with are making that claim) is a strawman unless you primarily interact with people who are technologically illiterate.

I suppose that is straightforward and simple, but probably not in the way you intended.

> If you bought a hammer and never used it, so it never actually improved yourself, would you say the hammer itself isn't "useful"?

I have no idea why you think ridiculous analogies like convey your thoughts clearly, but to answer your question: No I would not say the hammer isn't useful, because it has a use and just I didn't take advantage of its utility.

[andymasley]

This is all so strange. You're reading the exact opposite meanings into my really simple posts and comments. I don't know how anyone could read the post and come away thinking I believe anyone questioning chatbots thinks they're completely useless. I'm gonna bounce. Good luck.

[bpt3]

You keep saying your content is "simple", "clear", and "straightforward", yet based on your own take on the interactions here, you are widely misunderstood. How could that be?

You literally speak in riddles (via your endless use of hypothetical scenarios with no attempt to link them to the topic at hand), refuse to respond to direct questions that could clear up confusion, and have some rather eccentric and seemingly inconsistent views that you seem to really want to convey to others.

I'm not the one who needs luck going forward, my friend. Best wishes.