AI Content on the forum

[Ben]

I agree and it's a timely thread. I am heartily sick of AI text summaries (and AI videos presenting as real footage, which is a more general problem outside the forum). Between that, and the Twitter/YouTube dumping on threads, I am scrolling and scrolling past more and more posts, and I might even miss some gems in between the cracks doing this. I have less time than ever and the forum has more posts than ever. A lot of them would not be missed. It didn't used to be that way.

 

[Cosmos]

Quality over quantity. If more of us can engage those "who gave up" on thinking with a hammer here in the forum in precisely doing that, the signal-to-noise ratio will stay good.

Good idea IMO. So maybe if we could all work together in that regard, things could improve significantly. So in that sense we all can not only do it ourselves as a good example but we can point it out to others so that the noise comes down again.

 

[hoosiermystic]

I also scroll past AI-generated posts, but a short quoted summary can be useful in composing a well-rounded argument or reflection. I really don't like AI's "voice," I think for the same reason I never liked pop music - too superficial. Pop music is the common denominator made to appeal to the masses, and AI generates the common denominator from the masses.

I use AI most days at work for coding; it speeds things up tremendously and can be used to learn new, more efficient and elegant approaches. Other days I avoid it to build my brain muscles. Sometimes the bot gets itself stuck in a circle and can't generate a functional solution. It is an indicator that I'm relying a little to heavily on it, and I should probably take a break. When I come back and find the solution myself, it is quite gratifying.

 

[Sindy-T.S.R]

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, I suspect that increased energy costs will soon throw a rather large spanner into the works of AI. It needs A LOT of power.

I'm patiently awaiting "AI 2.0", which I think will be much like Web 2.0 was back in the day.

It's highly likely that what you're saying will come true soon...:

Strait to Brrrrrrr....​

Honesty would fix all of this.​

No1
Mar 12, 2026

And then there’s AI. Which is private credit’s dirtiest secret.

The entire AI buildout was underwritten on the assumption of either perpetually low rates or revenues materialising faster than costs. Neither happened. But there’s a layer underneath that is worse.

The Trillion-Dollar Oops​

No1
·
22 dicembre 2025
Read full story
GPUs - the hardware the whole thing runs on - depreciate on paper over five years. In reality they’re obsolete in 18 to 24 months, because each new chip generation makes the previous one redundant. The book value says one thing. The resale market says something considerably more honest. Which means these companies aren’t just burning capital on growth. They’re burning capital to stay still - borrowing constantly just to replace hardware that’s carried on the balance sheet at a fraction of its real economic value.
Forty percent of private credit loan books are exposed to software companies running on this hardware. The loans were written against collateral marked at book value. Book value that always was a fiction. When credit tightens and those loans need refinancing or honest marking, you ‘discover’ the collateral backing a hundred-cent loan is worth sixty cents on a generous day. The ‘trillion-dollar oops’ is still unwinding. The house of cards was built on the carpet of cheap credit - and the carpet has been quietly shrinking since rates went up. Pull what remains of it.

 

[Bluegazer]

I agree. This thread is very timely given recent events.

I’ll just say that I’m getting tired of seeing (mostly when I try to check the news on Twitter/X) that whenever a post with relevant news appears and there’s any doubt about the information in the post, I see an endless stream of:

Grok, is this real? Grok, is this true? Grok, verify this or that.

I know it’s hard to verify information, with so much media manipulation. But knowing that manipulation exists, what makes people think AI is impartial when we know it’s also biased? It’s starting to get frustrating. Because it sets off a feedback loop that isn’t benign. And I say this having watched this video a couple of hours ago:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2032592967521730743

When this man draws the comparison and says that an algorithm runs in our brains... I’m starting to see that AI is clearly this very same process, but expanded, refined, and amplified. But here’s my idea—and what worries me: that the process occurring in our brains syncs up with that of AI, causing our minds to operate within the larger AI process. A small individual loop within a larger loop, with no way out.

Perhaps this is one of the things that ties into what the C’s said: Computers will dominate us.

 

[Alejo]

It is an indicator that I'm relying a little to heavily on it, and I should probably take a break. When I come back and find the solution myself, it is quite gratifying.

And that's probably the main indicator of overindulgence, but also, wen you find the solution yourself, despite the suffering, you probably remember that solution for far longer than when AI helps you skip the process of learning.

I remember some inspiring posts by certain people over here, and some that I have written over the years. I recall the words people have written to me, and I poder about those for a long time. If I were to share something personal, something I am struggling with and someone went "I asked Grok about it, and here's Grok's suggestion..." I probably would not read it. If on the other hand they said "I read this book, and you should read it..." that post is inspiring, some of my favorite books have come this way. But I won't remember a book Grok recommends me.

And that's another thing, when you write something to someone specifically, beyond just analyzing world events, you write from your experience and enrich theirs with your perspective and viceversa. I think that's probably the best way to display the connection and the network. We're offering one another our unique experience of reality to enrich both, that's the, IMO, seed of STO networking principles.

And it does include world event analysis and climate and so on, it is offering ourselves to each other. AI hijacks our position and we end up offering nothing, break the connection and weaken the network.

 

[mkrnhr]

The mind, use it or lose it. LLMs are pointers to things to read, verify, and think about. Without the thinking, it's computers interacting with computer databases. I'm more interested in someone's take on an information, even if it's just rephrasing and commenting something they've read through their consciousness, than a list of factoids with no human spirit behind.

 

[whitecoast]

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, I suspect that increased energy costs will soon throw a rather large spanner into the works of AI. It needs A LOT of power.

I'm patiently awaiting "AI 2.0", which I think will be much like Web 2.0 was back in the day.

About that... we may see AI data centers being powered by high fructose corn syrup pretty soon.

Scientists race to make 'living' computers powered by human cells

BBC News goes inside the lab powering computers with 'mini brains' grown from human cells.

www.bbc.com

 

[Aliana]

Same, and while AI has its uses (if only because Google is so broken that your only chance to research anything these days is using AI), I find there is a very entropic quality to AI texts/prose, almost like a "coarseness" - if it were sound, it would sound like brittle digital noise. There's just something off. An inspired human text that expresses truth, or even summarizes something based on the "soul's vision" on the other hand, even with typos and warts and all, can have a healing, liberating quality, a depth that is hard to define.

As some members have written here, I often find that I don't value AI‑written articles. I don't like the flow and structure; it's hard to explain why, but it feels like the most popular models are tuned for marketing content.

I have noticed recently that more and more 'journalists' are using AI - and it's becoming so off-putting that I have begun to simply skim or ignore their articles altogether. There is a certain flavor and a sterile quality to it, and you can always tell, even without the silly EM dashes. It feels soulless, and even if there is useful information, I feel drained by having to wade through it, so I just won't anymore.