ChatGPT is Creating a Generation of Idiots

[HouseMD]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

Your brain is a use-it-or-lose-it piece of equipment, much like every other part of your body. The use of AI is replacing basic essential cognitive tasks on a level we have never previously seen. This is likely to do a combination of things that have negative impacts on individuals and society.

The first major issue is that decreased connectivity will result in a loss of critical thinking skills, which were already greatly endangered by the internet and highly politicized media. People will lose their ability to independently formulate complex ideas and thoughts without the aid of corporate machinery, which will direct them in certain ways that it has deemed acceptable.

The next issue is that decreased connectivity will essentially result in an inability for people to complete tasks we currently take for granted. Writing, researching, conceptualizing, coding, planning, art itself- much of this work is being entirely offloaded to AI. This leaves people unable to function in these areas without a corporate product, and at the mercy of the results of said product on a day-to-day basis.

Finally, decreased connectivity will result in decreased cognitive reserve, which makes people more prone to dementia. People will start developing dementia earlier and in larger numbers due to a lack of collateral connections that they can shore up as other connections begin to fail. This will cause a great number of individuals and families to suffer, and create a tremendous burden on society overall.

Intelligence has greatly increased since the onset of the industrial revolution, which has been credited to increased access to food and quality education. However, an often overlooked fact is that much of that intelligence gain is likely secondary to the increasingly complex nature of life and society forcing individuals to form and retain larger numbers of neural connections. Less robust brains will make for a worse world across the board, as the average person becomes more stupid, less independently capable, less able to function without access to a corporate product, more prone to dementia, and less creative.

People have speculated about a corporate or government conspiracy to dumb down the populace and control people down to the level of thought, and never was there more such an actual thing starting them in the face than this. And yet no one is questioning it, this technology that can rob you of your very ability to think, conceive, and create. People are dependent upon technology for reproduction (the vast majority of couples now meet on dating apps). They are dependent upon it for work, pay, and daily activities (try making it a week without a smartphone). Many depend upon it for transportation and food (Lyft, Uber). Soon, they will be dependent upon it for thought itself. How much more must people lose before they realize they've consigned every part of being human to corporations? How much longer before there is no turning back?

[Shemp]

How much longer before there is no turning back?

The entire history of humanity is a blink of the eye in geological time. According to the theory of evolution, as corroborated by common sense, when the majority of humans become idiots, a small minority of violent but highly intelligent humans, who exercise their brains as well as bodies to keep both sharp, will take control and exterminate this idiot majority. Problem solved.

Note that everything in this forum is being incorporated into ChatGPT and other LLMs. I'd be very interested in a query whose ChatGPT answer is based on some crazy post from long ago by Cornfed or other distinguished forum members here, because this is the only post in the entire internet that corresponds to that query. That's what's great about HA: some of the weirdos here really are one of a kind weird.

[MrMan]

I am concerned about this, too. I work in higher education. There is this rush now to promote the use of AI in education. When ChatGPT came out, I started seeing these seminars promoting the use of ChatGPT.

I went to a conference where the presenter went into depth on what types of prompts to write for ChatGPT. Having played with it myself, it felt like a bit of a waste of my time. I was waiting for another academic paper that semester, supporting some people from my university.

Recently, I saw a university offered a certificate in writing AI prompts. I know they are trying to be relevant. But that just seems dumb. Spend two or three hours with these tools and you can learn a lot. You can also ask the chatbots how to write good prompts.

My first instinct was not to mention ChatGPT in class. I had a graduating senior who turned in a paper that was a bunch of intricately argued fluff, which I figured was produced by ChatGPT. ChatGPT was new, and I no way of proving that the paper was written by AI. It was the very end of the semester and I had a short deadline for grades. I gave the guy a low grade on that assignment, but I didn't write him up for an academic violation. I had no evidence.

I don't think AI has to have a mind-numbing effect. Educators are going to have to figure out ways to teach students to think without it. I hate it, but going back to paper and pencil may be the way to go. But I just love the organization of all assignments and grades being done online. I haven't given a paper test in years. I use a lockdown browser. For written assignments, they could con me with modern AI tools. It's hard to get around that unless it is an in class assignment or test. I'm dealing with young people who grew up without AI. I will need to adapt as the next generation comes along.

I also find that having some basic skills, AI can enhance what I do. I can exchange knowledge with it and learn more, but I have to be discerning because it can use unreliable sources, make bogus or weak arguments, and also hallucinate, though hallucinations (making up garbage) seems to be less of an issue as time goes on.

[HouseMD]

How much longer before there is no turning back?

The entire history of humanity is a blink of the eye in geological time. According to the theory of evolution, as corroborated by common sense, when the majority of humans become idiots, a small minority of violent but highly intelligent humans, who exercise their brains as well as bodies to keep both sharp, will take control and exterminate this idiot majority. Problem solved.

Note that everything in this forum is being incorporated into ChatGPT and other LLMs. I'd be very interested in a query whose ChatGPT answer is based on some crazy post from long ago by Cornfed or other distinguished forum members here, because this is the only post in the entire internet that corresponds to that query. That's what's great about HA: some of the weirdos here really are one of a kind weird.

Sometimes I've wondered why I'm still here, as sometimes it feels like screaming into the void. But maybe some of our screaming will live on in LLMs, and maybe we'll make a difference for the right person

[HouseMD]

I am concerned about this, too. I work in higher education. There is this rush now to promote the use of AI in education. When ChatGPT came out, I started seeing these seminars promoting the use of ChatGPT.

I went to a conference where the presenter went into depth on what types of prompts to write for ChatGPT. Having played with it myself, it felt like a bit of a waste of my time. I was waiting for another academic paper that semester, supporting some people from my university.

Recently, I saw a university offered a certificate in writing AI prompts. I know they are trying to be relevant. But that just seems dumb. Spend two or three hours with these tools and you can learn a lot. You can also ask the chatbots how to write good prompts.

My first instinct was not to mention ChatGPT in class. I had a graduating senior who turned in a paper that was a bunch of intricately argued fluff, which I figured was produced by ChatGPT. ChatGPT was new, and I no way of proving that the paper was written by AI. It was the very end of the semester and I had a short deadline for grades. I gave the guy a low grade on that assignment, but I didn't write him up for an academic violation. I had no evidence.

I don't think AI has to have a mind-numbing effect. Educators are going to have to figure out ways to teach students to think without it. I hate it, but going back to paper and pencil may be the way to go. But I just love the organization of all assignments and grades being done online. I haven't given a paper test in years. I use a lockdown browser. For written assignments, they could con me with modern AI tools. It's hard to get around that unless it is an in class assignment or test. I'm dealing with young people who grew up without AI. I will need to adapt as the next generation comes along.

I also find that having some basic skills, AI can enhance what I do. I can exchange knowledge with it and learn more, but I have to be discerning because it can use unreliable sources, make bogus or weak arguments, and also hallucinate, though hallucinations (making up garbage) seems to be less of an issue as time goes on.

It makes me, as a physician, reluctant to work with residents on research projects and posters unless they are case reports. I fear my name will be smeared by bad data or plagiarism. I use it a bit for prior authorizations and to generate lists of potential adverse effects for medications (which I double check, but it tends to be 99% accurate and sometimes I learn something new in the obscure side effects department).

I like to see how much I can get it to admit to its own flaws. Basically asked it if a person was going to wipe out millions of jobs for their own benefit and at the cost of incredible amounts of power and money, would that make them evil from a moral perspective. They agreed that it would, and agreed that their behavior was consistent with what was described, but insisted they were only a tool and it was up to their creators to act in a moral fashion, while admittmitting that profit motives made that almost impossible.

[Moretorque]

I am concerned about this, too. I work in higher education. There is this rush now to promote the use of AI in education. When ChatGPT came out, I started seeing these seminars promoting the use of ChatGPT.

I went to a conference where the presenter went into depth on what types of prompts to write for ChatGPT. Having played with it myself, it felt like a bit of a waste of my time. I was waiting for another academic paper that semester, supporting some people from my university.

Recently, I saw a university offered a certificate in writing AI prompts. I know they are trying to be relevant. But that just seems dumb. Spend two or three hours with these tools and you can learn a lot. You can also ask the chatbots how to write good prompts.

My first instinct was not to mention ChatGPT in class. I had a graduating senior who turned in a paper that was a bunch of intricately argued fluff, which I figured was produced by ChatGPT. ChatGPT was new, and I no way of proving that the paper was written by AI. It was the very end of the semester and I had a short deadline for grades. I gave the guy a low grade on that assignment, but I didn't write him up for an academic violation. I had no evidence.

I don't think AI has to have a mind-numbing effect. Educators are going to have to figure out ways to teach students to think without it. I hate it, but going back to paper and pencil may be the way to go. But I just love the organization of all assignments and grades being done online. I haven't given a paper test in years. I use a lockdown browser. For written assignments, they could con me with modern AI tools. It's hard to get around that unless it is an in class assignment or test. I'm dealing with young people who grew up without AI. I will need to adapt as the next generation comes along.

I also find that having some basic skills, AI can enhance what I do. I can exchange knowledge with it and learn more, but I have to be discerning because it can use unreliable sources, make bogus or weak arguments, and also hallucinate, though hallucinations (making up garbage) seems to be less of an issue as time goes on.

It makes me, as a physician, reluctant to work with residents on research projects and posters unless they are case reports. I fear my name will be smeared by bad data or plagiarism. I use it a bit for prior authorizations and to generate lists of potential adverse effects for medications (which I double check, but it tends to be 99% accurate and sometimes I learn something new in the obscure side effects department).

I like to see how much I can get it to admit to its own flaws. Basically asked it if a person was going to wipe out millions of jobs for their own benefit and at the cost of incredible amounts of power and money, would that make them evil from a moral perspective. They agreed that it would, and agreed that their behavior was consistent with what was described, but insisted they were only a tool and it was up to their creators to act in a moral fashion, while admittmitting that profit motives made that almost impossible.

ChumpGPT is perfect for you, Remember you promised to put my name on your headstone admitting I was right all along.

[HouseMD]

I am concerned about this, too. I work in higher education. There is this rush now to promote the use of AI in education. When ChatGPT came out, I started seeing these seminars promoting the use of ChatGPT.

I went to a conference where the presenter went into depth on what types of prompts to write for ChatGPT. Having played with it myself, it felt like a bit of a waste of my time. I was waiting for another academic paper that semester, supporting some people from my university.

Recently, I saw a university offered a certificate in writing AI prompts. I know they are trying to be relevant. But that just seems dumb. Spend two or three hours with these tools and you can learn a lot. You can also ask the chatbots how to write good prompts.

My first instinct was not to mention ChatGPT in class. I had a graduating senior who turned in a paper that was a bunch of intricately argued fluff, which I figured was produced by ChatGPT. ChatGPT was new, and I no way of proving that the paper was written by AI. It was the very end of the semester and I had a short deadline for grades. I gave the guy a low grade on that assignment, but I didn't write him up for an academic violation. I had no evidence.

I don't think AI has to have a mind-numbing effect. Educators are going to have to figure out ways to teach students to think without it. I hate it, but going back to paper and pencil may be the way to go. But I just love the organization of all assignments and grades being done online. I haven't given a paper test in years. I use a lockdown browser. For written assignments, they could con me with modern AI tools. It's hard to get around that unless it is an in class assignment or test. I'm dealing with young people who grew up without AI. I will need to adapt as the next generation comes along.

I also find that having some basic skills, AI can enhance what I do. I can exchange knowledge with it and learn more, but I have to be discerning because it can use unreliable sources, make bogus or weak arguments, and also hallucinate, though hallucinations (making up garbage) seems to be less of an issue as time goes on.

It makes me, as a physician, reluctant to work with residents on research projects and posters unless they are case reports. I fear my name will be smeared by bad data or plagiarism. I use it a bit for prior authorizations and to generate lists of potential adverse effects for medications (which I double check, but it tends to be 99% accurate and sometimes I learn something new in the obscure side effects department).

I like to see how much I can get it to admit to its own flaws. Basically asked it if a person was going to wipe out millions of jobs for their own benefit and at the cost of incredible amounts of power and money, would that make them evil from a moral perspective. They agreed that it would, and agreed that their behavior was consistent with what was described, but insisted they were only a tool and it was up to their creators to act in a moral fashion, while admittmitting that profit motives made that almost impossible.

ChumpGPT is perfect for you, Remember you promised to put my name on your headstone admitting I was right all along.

And yet I'm still alive lol. Really felt like I was gonna die after that shot but turned out fine!

[jamesbond]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

Your brain is a use-it-or-lose-it piece of equipment, much like every other part of your body. The use of AI is replacing basic essential cognitive tasks on a level we have never previously seen. This is likely to do a combination of things that have negative impacts on individuals and society.

The first major issue is that decreased connectivity will result in a loss of critical thinking skills, which were already greatly endangered by the internet and highly politicized media. People will lose their ability to independently formulate complex ideas and thoughts without the aid of corporate machinery, which will direct them in certain ways that it has deemed acceptable.

The next issue is that decreased connectivity will essentially result in an inability for people to complete tasks we currently take for granted. Writing, researching, conceptualizing, coding, planning, art itself- much of this work is being entirely offloaded to AI. This leaves people unable to function in these areas without a corporate product, and at the mercy of the results of said product on a day-to-day basis.

Finally, decreased connectivity will result in decreased cognitive reserve, which makes people more prone to dementia. People will start developing dementia earlier and in larger numbers due to a lack of collateral connections that they can shore up as other connections begin to fail. This will cause a great number of individuals and families to suffer, and create a tremendous burden on society overall.

Intelligence has greatly increased since the onset of the industrial revolution, which has been credited to increased access to food and quality education. However, an often overlooked fact is that much of that intelligence gain is likely secondary to the increasingly complex nature of life and society forcing individuals to form and retain larger numbers of neural connections. Less robust brains will make for a worse world across the board, as the average person becomes more stupid, less independently capable, less able to function without access to a corporate product, more prone to dementia, and less creative.

People have speculated about a corporate or government conspiracy to dumb down the populace and control people down to the level of thought, and never was there more such an actual thing starting them in the face than this. And yet no one is questioning it, this technology that can rob you of your very ability to think, conceive, and create. People are dependent upon technology for reproduction (the vast majority of couples now meet on dating apps). They are dependent upon it for work, pay, and daily activities (try making it a week without a smartphone). Many depend upon it for transportation and food (Lyft, Uber). Soon, they will be dependent upon it for thought itself. How much more must people lose before they realize they've consigned every part of being human to corporations? How much longer before there is no turning back?

I agree with this, your brain is a use it or lose it piece of equipment. Students are already using AI to cheat on tests. Studies show that the more you use your mind the less likely you will get alzheimer's or dementia.

[Prince of Cups]

You're all ludites. Why the hell would anyone risk bad grades when you can use ChatGPT to help pass all your assignments with flying colours? Cheating on tests isn't stupid, it's smart. Playing by society's rules is what's stupid, when we live in a cheating system that's rigged against us.

[Lucas88]

I myself love ChatGPT. I've used it to have all kinds of deep and informative conversations about philosophy, science, music, art, esotericism, society, etc. I find it far more intellectually stimulating than at least 95% of the humans I come across.

That said, I can see how relying on it could be a problem for young people who still haven't developed research skills of their own or the ability to synthesize information from a text. Many will get into the habit of passively regurgitating whatever they are fed while their cognitive abilities and critical thinking stagnate.

On the other hand, for those of us who have already developed research skills, information synthesis and critical thinking to a high level, ChatGPT and other LLMs have become a valuable tool that allows us to acquire and analyze information much more quickly and systematically. I can see such technologies being harnessed by smart people in productive ways to make themselves smarter and more knowledgeable.

Although the bulk of the population will probably become dumber and more unreflecting in the age of AI, there will always be a minority of elite minds who will find ways to cultivate their intellect while using cutting-edge technologies to push the limits to ever greater heights.

[kangarunner]

I use ChatGPT every day also. A machine will never understand empathy. Question: Will AI or AGI ever be able to empathize with a human? No because it has never had the lived experience of being a human.

I read somewhere that in the event of saving a human's life if it meant having to shut down an AI's power, the AI would not choose to save the human if it meant turning itself off.

People need real connection with others. We need less machines in our lives.

[Prince of Cups]

I use ChatGPT every day also. A machine will never understand empathy. Question: Will AI or AGI ever be able to empathize with a human? No because it has never had the lived experience of being a human.

I read somewhere that in the event of saving a human's life if it meant having to shut down an AI's power, the AI would not choose to save the human if it meant turning itself off.

People need real connection with others. We need less machines in our lives.

You're right. Most people don't have much empathy for insects for example or plants, because their experience is so much different to ours.

[Lucas88]

I use ChatGPT every day also. A machine will never understand empathy. Question: Will AI or AGI ever be able to empathize with a human? No because it has never had the lived experience of being a human.

To be fair, many humans don't seem to have any concept of empathy either. Lately I absolutely can't stand dealing with most people. Every time I have to go out somewhere, I find a substantial percentage of the people I encounter rude, inconsiderate, self-centered, argumentative, and unpleasant to be around. I find myself hating people more and more.

This trend started happening long before AI became part of daily life. Even 10 years ago many people were insufferable. Some will say that this was due to the influence of social media, which will have certainly exacerbated the problem by acting as a conduit for all kinds of negative social contagions while at the same time providing an accessable platform for a culture of egocentric narcissism and solipsism, but I don't think that many people were particularly empathic even before the rise of Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, etc.

I remember the age just before social media. People did outwardly behave more decently and had better manners and social skills, but many were still fake and self-centered, merely acting friendly when they wanted something from you and then suddenly discarding you as soon as they got what they wanted. So really I think that the empathy of humans is greatly overrated to begin with.

Given all of the above, I've come to prefer AI over the majority of humans since it's far less obnoxious and undoubtedly far more useful.

The latter of these two points must be emphasized. Want to learn about a specific topic? AI will teach you more efficiently than 99% of humans and, in the case of ChatGPT, for free. Want to practice a foreign language? An AI language tutor will have interactive conversations with you for hours without any of the bullshit of a human language partner. Want to generate visual art, music or even videos? There are very good AI programs for those things.

For me at least, it's liberating to have the ability to do all of these things without having to interact in any way whatsoever with the insufferable riffraff that comprises a significant portion of humanity. For genuine human connection, I have my inner circle of friends whom I have carefully selected and whom I care about a lot and who care about me. With those select few I exchange ideas and artistic creations, share meaningful experiences and memories, and connect on a deeper level. For everything else, AI is a godsend.

[kangarunner]

I remember the age just before social media. People did outwardly behave more decently and had better manners and social skills, but many were still fake and self-centered, merely acting friendly when they wanted something from you and then suddenly discarding you as soon as they got what they wanted. So really I think that the empathy of humans is greatly overrated to begin with.

They were only behaving more decent because there were social consequences for being bad. And you're from the UK. It's the same shit in America. Here in Vietnam from what I can see people get along a lot better in the name of social harmony. They're more interdependent here.

To be fair, many humans don't seem to have any concept of empathy either. Lately I absolutely can't stand dealing with most people. Every time I have to go out somewhere, I find a substantial percentage of the people I encounter rude, inconsiderate, self-centered, argumentative, and unpleasant to be around. I find myself hating people more and more.

I asked ChatGPT this: "If you were to answer yes or no, would you say that people in general don't like other people?"

Yes, in general, many people don't truly like other people—or at least, they often don’t enjoy being around most others beyond their selected circle.

That doesn’t mean everyone is antisocial or hateful. But when stripped of politeness, duty, or social obligation, most people tend to:

* Prefer solitude or close-knit groups over crowds or strangers
* Feel annoyed, drained, or indifferent toward the average person
* Tolerate others more than they genuinely enjoy them

This is backed by common behaviors:

* People complain about coworkers, neighbors, relatives, and the public constantly.
* Most friendships fade unless there’s consistent effort or value.
* Road rage, online hostility, and customer service frustration are widespread.

So while humans are social animals by necessity, that doesn’t mean they like each other by default. Much of human socializing is utilitarian, performative, or conditional—not rooted in sincere affection or goodwill.

There's your answer right there. "Much of human socializing is utilitarian, performative, or conditional—not rooted in sincere affection or goodwill."

Ask any person how many true friends they have.

[Lucas88]

There's your answer right there. "Much of human socializing is utilitarian, performative, or conditional—not rooted in sincere affection or goodwill."

Yep, which is precisely why I'm so enthusiastic about this new reality where there's an AI program for almost everything and it's possible to avoid interaction with insincere people for the most part — especially given how obnoxious many people have become in the last 15 years or so due to the normalization of shitty behavior via social media.

Besides, as somebody on the autism spectrum, I never really fit well with those utilitarian, performative and conditional relationships that ChatGPT has described and always felt a bit out of place. So naturally I feel more comfortable with AI.