One example.

Got something that has more than 18 participants split into 3 groups for a total sample size of 6 people per control group? Not to mention its focus on AI assisted essay writing, measuring cognitive debt (not decline), using EEG to infer performance of higher cognitive function, etc.

Vague criticisms, fallacious reasoning, highly emotive language, little response to attempts at discussion (though some might engage in disingenuous discussions of shifting goalposts here and there to discourage particularly vocal engagees from future participation). So I’d say that Linus is just the latest convenient scapegoat in an Anti-AI ‘trend’ that will have little impact on the rate of AI adoption in the long run.

Sucks that I waited until now to try to form a measured opinion on AI because now all the discussions on the internet are hot garbage.

As someone who did study computer science and has worked in embedded processor space

Using an argument from authority to denounce someone in authority and their arguments? Cool. Might’ve worked if I hadn’t seen you mention recently that we shouldn’t use AI ‘because Trump and his cronies do’.

AI use demonstrably leads to cognitive decline

source?

Man I’ve seen others try to twist those words the same way even though it’s on the same level as one of those elementary reasoning problems you’d find on a basic IQ test (Jack caught an std after interacting with koalas - a) all koalas transmit stds, b) some koalas transmit stds, c) pandas are free from stds, d) Jack should spend more than $5 on his hookers).

So unless you actually are stupid and this is why you’re choosing to (defensively) misinterpret his words by picking the equivalent of c) here, it’s clearly wilful misrepresentation of a very reasonable statement - “Of the people I admire, most don’t shy away from cutting edge sutff”

It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.

Could you elaborate on this a little? I came here as I’m not very knowledgable when it comes to AI and am genuinely curious. Sadly you’re the only person I’ve seen so far that has made coherent (even if broad) arguments against AI.

I know the environment argument is probably the enormous power demand of AI, and as far as the copyright thing goes, I’ve seen first hand how people abuse voice actors’ livelihoods with shitty imitations of their voices that are also completely devoid of anything resembling skill. But how does AI harm developers, lock you in to a specific vendor or make you dependant on giant tech companies?

I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it

So your stance is “trust without verification”.

I’m curious how you came to this conclusion

And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.

(But) Both smart people and dumb people are using them

This is not the gotcha you seem to think it is…

You know who else isn’t shying away from the new tools? Trump and his cronies.

Hard to think of a poorer argument against AI use.

In line with the rest of the comments here so far where there’s lots of anti AI rage but little to no coherent arguments that specify how Linus using AI to code is a bad thing. No specifics, lots of vague beating around the bush, highly emotive language.

All valid questions I’m curious about myself, but from my cursory look at this specific study, they only took a very broad look at vegetable intake involvement, specifically along the lines of “Does the reduction in dementia risk hold true even for people with a high veg vs low veg diet?”

So even if your hypothesis seems reasonable, I’d hesitate to make any assumptions without research backing it up. Not to mention I don’t even know if the present study even holds water, considering the number of such studies that end up being ‘tabloid’ level research.

Enforcing what? It’s up to your email service to adopt the change. The way it currently works was probably okay for the early days of the internet when people had just started using emails, but now that so much private and sensitive financial information passes through your email account, it makes little sense that the same credential you use to login to your email account (email id) is also what you must use when some random website forces you to register in order to access it, just so they can send you massive volumes of unsolicited spam.

Certainly a simpler change with more potential to do good relative to the ease of enforcing a convoluted passkey-slash-usb-slash-save-this-file-somewhere-safe implementation

Not quite. The way I read it, the editorialized title (wrongly) says that mushrooms give +75% dementia resistance but that the effects do not stack with vegetable intake’s unspecified x%.

Meanwhile the study only goes as far as to say the dementia risk remains reduced even in people with an already high vegetable intake.

In other words, add mushrooms to your present diet - don’t replace all your veggies with mushrooms (assuming you take the results at face value).

A lot of contradiction in your opinion ( at least as far as blaming the need for masculinity goes). As you pointed out yourself, toilets can be gross to sit on, and by now most people know what ‘clean’ toilets are really like under uv light. And that’s the only reason why, unless it’s my own toilet, I’m never sitting down on one to pee or poop.

Amazon/whatever login:

• email: koalalover@schmeemail.com
• password: hunter2

Email login:

• username: chlamidiyasux
• password: hunter3

There. You’ve solved 90% of online fraud that begins with website(s) leaking your credentials and someone combining leaks to gain access to everything in your life via your email (including bank, socials, porn habits, whatever).