It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself.
(I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)
(I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)
Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
Neither qualifies as thinking for yourself.
She put flat earth, reptilians and queen had diana killed on the same level. I guess gladio too?
I mean kings historically have had lots of people killed. Certainly I can't know if that's what happened, but it's at least possible (unlike flat earth).
Also she didn't take questions from the audience, in the spirit of science.
Of course, you also have to identify which experts are trustworthy. This is an important skill to have.
A non-expert must rely on at least two things to do this. The first are external signals, like financial associations and a record of making unpopular criticisms (but without being a contrarian or aiming for sensationalism), as well as reputational factors (not popularity, but a reputation for making strong cases).
The second is the basic coherence of their claims. If they make remarks that contradict basic reality, then this is not a good sign.
And of course, you have to be prudential and recognize your own limits.
These are probabilistic, naturally, and there is an expected divergence of opinion here, even between what you thought yesterday and what you think today.
The past few years have been a veritable parade of experts saying inaccurate things, and/or being proven hilariously wrong in a variety of domains. I'm not saying that this isn't a hard problem -- it is -- but the fact is that "expert" is not a get-out-of-thinking-free card. It is, at best, a slightly higher weighted input amongst all others.
They hold more weight than the average person, but it doesn't make them right by default.
It's strong for members of a community to think alike. On the other hand, some people like to search in todash meme space for a useful idea or strategy in the rough. Problem is this treasure hunter strategy is only available to those with resources to try lots of untested and potentially quite harmful ideas.
Uh oh...
More seriously, if you have non-techie (or less techie) friends or family using ChatGPT please ask to see their conversations.
You're likely to be shocked by at a least few of them... many people really don't understand what these tools are and are using them in crazy and damaging ways.
For example, one friends brother in law has his ChatGPT telling him about varrious penny stocks and obscure cryptocurrencies and promising him 10000x returns, which he absolutely believes and is making investments based on.
Other people are allowing ChatGPT to convince them that God has chosen to speak to them through ChatGPT and is commanding them to do all sorts of nonsense.
The commercial LLMs work well enough that people who don't know how they work are frequently bamboozled.
Consider how much your own skepticism of the output comes from cases where it was confidently but objectively wrong and what happens to someone who never uses it on something where objective correctness can be easily judged.
I dunno how tool use is setup in chat interface as I've only used the API, but I doubt there was ever a request to any of the urls and the author could have just as easily added https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/that-time-i-won-the-l... or any other made up URL and it would have waxed poetic about that one too.