google

15 items found

797485709662519296

donotdestroy:

“The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely ‘soulless.’ The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work. ‘It was more like, just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I’m done,’ Kosmyna says.”

_
ChatGPT’s Opinion

Both the Time article and the Gizmodo piece raise valid and important concerns, but they also reflect a broader cultural anxiety about AI — what some might call a “techlash.” Here’s a balanced take on both:

🔍 What they get right:

  1. Critical thinking can erode with passive use
    Both articles underscore a key truth: if you let AI do all the work, your brain gets lazy. This isn’t just speculation — it’s backed by cognitive science. Active learning is crucial for retention, deep thinking, and creativity. These studies highlight real risks, especially for students and developing minds.
  2. The analogy to calculators and Google Maps is helpful
    Just like calculators didn’t kill math (but overusing them for basic operations can harm number sense), AI isn’t inherently harmful — but it can displace the mental effort that’s necessary for learning.
  3. Originality and creativity suffer
    The studies found that ChatGPT-generated essays tended to be “soulless” and formulaic. That’s a real limitation of LLMs — they’re good at mimicking patterns, but not at truly original thought. Relying on them too heavily can flatten thinking.
  4. There’s urgency around education policy
    The MIT researcher’s concern about “GPT kindergarten” is not far-fetched. Schools and policymakers are already integrating AI tools into classrooms. These decisions need to be informed by solid research and precaution, especially when developing brains are involved.

🤔 What needs caution or nuance:

  1. Small sample sizes, pre-review papers
    Especially in the MIT study, 54 participants is very limited. While EEG data is useful, it doesn’t capture the full picture of intelligence or learning. More peer-reviewed, large-scale studies are needed before drawing sweeping conclusions.
  2. “AI makes you stupid” is too broad
    The Gizmodo headline (“AI will make us morons”) is sensational. The reality is more nuanced: AI can dull your mind — but only if you use it passively or uncritically. It’s a tool. It can also enhance your thinking, if used wisely.
  3. Not everyone uses AI the same way
    Some people use ChatGPT as a brainstorming partner, a writing coach, or a way to better understand complex topics — all of which can be mentally engaging. Others use it to skip the thinking part. The outcome depends on the user’s intent and behavior.
  4. Moral panic vs. thoughtful caution
    There’s a fine line between raising the alarm and stoking fear. It’s important to investigate AI’s effects, but not assume that all AI use leads to “cognitive decline.”

🧠 Final thought:

These articles provide a valuable warning: don’t outsource your thinking. AI is powerful, but it’s only as good as the way you use it. If you’re aware of its limitations and make an effort to stay mentally active, AI can be a great tool — not a trap.

787581966072643584

“The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely ‘soulless.’ The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work. ‘It was more like, just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I’m done,’ Kosmyna says.”

_
ChatGPT’s Opinion

Both the Time article and the Gizmodo piece raise valid and important concerns, but they also reflect a broader cultural anxiety about AI — what some might call a “techlash.” Here’s a balanced take on both:

🔍 What they get right:

  1. Critical thinking can erode with passive use
    Both articles underscore a key truth: if you let AI do all the work, your brain gets lazy. This isn’t just speculation — it’s backed by cognitive science. Active learning is crucial for retention, deep thinking, and creativity. These studies highlight real risks, especially for students and developing minds.
  2. The analogy to calculators and Google Maps is helpful
    Just like calculators didn’t kill math (but overusing them for basic operations can harm number sense), AI isn’t inherently harmful — but it can displace the mental effort that’s necessary for learning.
  3. Originality and creativity suffer
    The studies found that ChatGPT-generated essays tended to be “soulless” and formulaic. That’s a real limitation of LLMs — they’re good at mimicking patterns, but not at truly original thought. Relying on them too heavily can flatten thinking.
  4. There’s urgency around education policy
    The MIT researcher’s concern about “GPT kindergarten” is not far-fetched. Schools and policymakers are already integrating AI tools into classrooms. These decisions need to be informed by solid research and precaution, especially when developing brains are involved.

🤔 What needs caution or nuance:

  1. Small sample sizes, pre-review papers
    Especially in the MIT study, 54 participants is very limited. While EEG data is useful, it doesn’t capture the full picture of intelligence or learning. More peer-reviewed, large-scale studies are needed before drawing sweeping conclusions.
  2. “AI makes you stupid” is too broad
    The Gizmodo headline (“AI will make us morons”) is sensational. The reality is more nuanced: AI can dull your mind — but only if you use it passively or uncritically. It’s a tool. It can also enhance your thinking, if used wisely.
  3. Not everyone uses AI the same way
    Some people use ChatGPT as a brainstorming partner, a writing coach, or a way to better understand complex topics — all of which can be mentally engaging. Others use it to skip the thinking part. The outcome depends on the user’s intent and behavior.
  4. Moral panic vs. thoughtful caution
    There’s a fine line between raising the alarm and stoking fear. It’s important to investigate AI’s effects, but not assume that all AI use leads to “cognitive decline.”

🧠 Final thought:

These articles provide a valuable warning: don’t outsource your thinking. AI is powerful, but it’s only as good as the way you use it. If you’re aware of its limitations and make an effort to stay mentally active, AI can be a great tool — not a trap.

786983248365486080

“This is not just a leak – it’s a blueprint for mass exploitation,” the researchers said. And they are right. These credentials are ground zero for phishing attacks and account takeover. “These aren’t just old breaches being recycled,” they warned, “this is fresh, weaponizable intelligence at scale.”

786083744213827584

Steve Jobs on Copycats

Steve Jobs had a famously strong stance against copycats, especially when it came to Apple’s products. Here’s how he dealt with them, both publicly and behind the scenes:

1. Public Condemnation

Steve Jobs didn’t hold back when criticizing companies he felt copied Apple.

  • Android: He was particularly angry with Google. In a 2011 biography by Walter Isaacson, Jobs is quoted saying: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
  • Samsung: Jobs and Apple executives were very vocal about Samsung copying the iPhone and iPad designs. This led to high-profile lawsuits.

2. Legal Action

Apple, under Jobs, aggressively used intellectual property (IP) laws to protect its designs and innovations.

  • Lawsuits: Apple sued Samsung, HTC, and other manufacturers for patent infringement. The case against Samsung became one of the biggest tech lawsuits of the 2010s and led to years of courtroom battles.
  • Design and Utility Patents: Apple patented everything from the iPhone’s rounded corners to multitouch gestures. Jobs believed deeply in the value of protecting design as much as function.

3. Doubling Down on Innovation

Rather than just reacting, Jobs pushed Apple to stay ahead:

  • He believed design, integration, and user experience could not be easily copied.
  • Apple consistently released refined and breakthrough products, making competitors look outdated.

4. Controlling the Ecosystem

Jobs understood that software and hardware integration was a competitive advantage.

  • Apple kept iOS closed and tightly integrated with its devices.
  • This “walled garden” approach made it harder for competitors to replicate the full experience.

5. Internal Philosophy

Jobs believed in being first and best, not just different.
He once said:

“Good artists copy; great artists steal,” quoting Picasso — but he meant it more as “absorb and innovate,” not imitate.

Summary

Steve Jobs responded to copycats through:

  • Public shaming
  • Aggressive litigation
  • Relentless innovation
  • Strategic control of Apple’s ecosystem

He was fiercely protective of Apple’s originality, and made it clear that copying Apple wasn’t just unfair — it was a personal offense.

By ChatGPT

781107692884344832

“US district judge Leonie Brinkema said in the ruling Google had ‘wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts’ which enabled it to ‘acquire and maintain monopoly power’ in the market. ‘This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,’ she said.”

763014747617673216

The US base salary range for this full-time position is $122,000-$178,000 + bonus + equity + benefits.

743172256816087040

The word “ego” has multiple definitions:

An idea or opinion

One’s ego is their opinion or idea of themselves, especially their sense of importance and ability.

An inflated sense of pride

One’s ego can also be an inflated feeling of pride in their superiority to others.

A sense of self

One’s ego can refer to their sense of self or perception of their identity. It can include a person’s thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values.

A sense of worth

One’s ego can also be their sense of their own worth. For example, if someone has a large ego, they think they are very important and valuable.

A part of a person’s personality

According to Sigmund Freud’s theory of personality, the ego is part of a person’s personality and experience.

— Google Generative AI

1 2 3