I'm not convinced of your basic premise. We have been warned of many of the possible errors and inaccuracies we might see in AI responses, and indeed most of the chat versions I have used (e.g. ChatGPT, Mistral, Claude, Gemini) include a disclaimer. Specific comments have been made about the use of AI for medical diagnoses without expert overview. Where your premise might prove right is amongst those who do not, cannot, or are unable to view the output with a sceptical eye. Those who always look for confirmation and verification will not be affected in my opinion.
A good article, though, and I appreciate your thoughts.
Unfortunately most using AI will be carried along by the flood of hype and will not have a sceptical eye. Those of us with more of a critical eye are probably not using AI much yet. See my articles in my previous response.
I fully agree with the contents of this article. Remarkably similar to thoughts I wrote in a couple of articles last year: "If AI uses it, we will lose it!" (https://medium.com/@AndyRead1/if-ai-uses-it-we-will-lose-it-cb1164b0a6b8) and "AI — The Inefficient Alternative?" (https://medium.com/@AndyRead1/ai-the-inefficient-alternative-ddf4ee07c7a3)
I'm not convinced of your basic premise. We have been warned of many of the possible errors and inaccuracies we might see in AI responses, and indeed most of the chat versions I have used (e.g. ChatGPT, Mistral, Claude, Gemini) include a disclaimer. Specific comments have been made about the use of AI for medical diagnoses without expert overview. Where your premise might prove right is amongst those who do not, cannot, or are unable to view the output with a sceptical eye. Those who always look for confirmation and verification will not be affected in my opinion.
A good article, though, and I appreciate your thoughts.
Unfortunately most using AI will be carried along by the flood of hype and will not have a sceptical eye. Those of us with more of a critical eye are probably not using AI much yet. See my articles in my previous response.