I’m sorry, you literally openly praised Scam Altman’s product as a massively superior option to web searching yes? Highly nuanced, saves you a ton of time, remember? And your response to the most obvious flaw with this use case is to deny you are affected by the problem in any way and to deflect the topic onto my attitude?

You genuinely remind me of my late uncle who snapped at us every time we told him to quit smoking. He was so convinced it wouldn’t catch up to him, had a hundred justifications. I’ll never forget the way his young daughter cried at the funeral. And before you and your “AI enhanced workflow” get into a whole thing about how cigarettes are different from computer programs, I’m not calling ChatGPT a Marlborough Red, I’m calling you bull headed. I could have just said as much, but as you’ve noticed, I like my fluff.

Anyway, I love how on the one point you addressed, your actual argument shifts from “it’s incredibly beneficial” to “it’s merely an insignificant fraction of my workflow!” Like, notice how your literal first instinct isn’t to defend the usefulness of chatgpt in this instance but to defend the integrity of your French by assuring me you are using legitimate sources as well.

This is the same pattern all AI victims I’ve spoken with have fallen into. It begins with “oh it saves me so much time it’s so useful!” Then as we interrogate how it’s useful to them it turns out all it does is waste their time with a bunch of bullshit they need to verify when they could have just gone directly to the source they use to verify in the first place.

That is if they even bother to verify, btw. But I honestly don’t know which direction is worse. A huge issue is the ones who “verify” are then always completely convinced that they have verified everything correctly. You can imagine the dangers of this mentality