Post #4479965

2026-08-10 01:05 UTC

@tbortels@infosec.exchange I think I agree with you completely here -- with the caveat that they don't *have to* displace learning, when used as a research tool. But it requires both discipline and awareness of the sharp edges to use it as a useful tool and not end up harming yourself. and of course none of that addresses any of the many other drawbacks you mentioned.

Replies (1)

@tbortels@infosec.exchange 2026-08-10 03:28

@darkuncle@infosec.exchange I'm concerned they always do, to a greater or lesser extent. Research is a skill as well. But if you use the AI to research - how do you check the answers. More research? Experimentally? I suggest using AI for research is a lot like using it for coding; the usefulness is proportional to how much you already know. Code is good; there are purely mechanical non-AI methods to confirm validity. But research? We've seen the AI give bad legal advice, we've seen it give bad medical advice. How do you confirm validity? I'd also add that the people *most likely* to use an AI for research, as opposed to going to original sources, are the least likely to recognize bullshit.

Open ##4479964