this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2026
383 points (95.3% liked)

Showerthoughts

39137 readers
1015 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
SuperEars@lemmy.world
383
When I was a kid, computers expanded your mind and your freedoms, bringing power to the individual. With AI, now it does the thinking for you, takes your job, gives power only to a few billionaires. (lemmus.org)
submitted 1 week ago by realitista@lemmus.org to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When I was young and starting out with computers, programming, BBS' and later the early internet, technology was something that expanded my mind, helped me to research, learn new skills, and meet people and have interesting conversations. Something decentralized that put power into the hands of the little guy who could start his own business venture with his PC or expand his skillset.

Where we are now with AI, the opposite seems to be happening. We are asking AI to do things for us rather than learning how to do things ourselves. We are losing our research skills. Many people are talking to AI's about their problems instead of other people. And they will take away our jobs and centralize all power into a handful of billionaire sociopaths with robot armies to carry out whatever nefarious deeds they want to do.

I hope we somehow make it through this part of history with some semblance of freedom and autonomy intact, but I'm having a hard time seeing how.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You didn't say his concerns were valid. You said you thought he was not "wholly wrong". Regardless, Plato being a crank about writing proves only that cranks existed before writing. It does nothing to help you interrogate nor help set you down the path to interrogate the problems mentioned (which is why I categorized it as a thought terminating cliche).

Your referenced article is basically a long-form version of your post, which has a perceivable bias toward the viewpoint that every newly-introduced technology can or will inevitably result in "progress" for humanity as a whole regardless of the methods of implementation or the incentives in the technology itself.

Far from being an instance of skub (https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/) as trumpeting this perspective -- perhaps unknowingly -- implies that it is (i.e. an agnostic technology / inanimate object that "two sides" are getting emotionally charged about), LLMs (and their "agentic" offspring) are both deliberately and unwittingly programmed to be biased. There are real concerns about this particular set of technologies that posting a quote from an ancient tome does not dismiss.

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

LLMs are both deliberately and unwittingly programmed to be biased.

I mean, it sounds like you're mirroring the paper's sentiments too. A big part of Clark's point is that interactions between humans and generative AI need to take into account the biases of the human and the AI.

The lesson is that it is the detailed shape of each specific human-AI coalition or interaction that matters. The social and technological factors that determine better or worse outcomes in this regard are not yet fully understood, and should be a major focus of new work in the field of human-AI interaction. [...] We now need to become experts at estimating the likely reliability of a response given both the subject matter and our level of skill at orchestrating a series of prompts. We must also learn to adjust our levels of trust

And as I am not, Clark is not really calling Plato a crank. That's not the point of using the quote.

And yet, perhaps there was an element of truth even in the worries raised in the Phaedrus. [...] Empirical studies have shown that the use of online search can lead people to judge that they know more ‘in the biological brain’ than they actually do, and can make people over-estimate how well they would perform under technologically unaided quiz conditions.

I don't think anyone is claiming that new technology necessarily leads to progress that is good for humanity. It requires a great deal of honest effort for society to learn how to use a new technology wisely, every time.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

And as I am not, Clark is not really calling Plato a crank. That’s not the point of using the quote.

Maybe you are not intending it, but your usage of the quote comes across as the same, thought-terminating cliche that is basically summarized in the partial citation of the bible of "there is nothing new under the sun".

You're not saying Plato was a crank, but I am. He definitely had some wisdom to impart about things (especially given his time and place in history), but his remarks about writing are ridiculous and crank-like (and made even more ridiculous based upon the fact that we only know what they are because someone wrote them down).

The paper waffles around a bit as to whether or not the result will be overall "good", and tries to be as adept at fence sitting as Dwight Shrute from the Office (https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6b3c335d-fd65-4db0-aa70-01c70f312b5a) but the position was made very apparent even from a short skim of the article as well as the way you're continually referencing it here.

I'd argue that a critical eye toward a specific new technology does not require someone to proceed back through time immemorial and compare it to the naysayers of the invention of the wheel.

Since you seem to have an affinity for Greek philosophers:

“It is the mark of an educated mind not to believe everything you read on the Internet.” - Aristotle

[–] Hackworth@piefed.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you put [brackets] around the word before your (parened link), it'll make it an actual link.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Eh, I prefer people to know where they're going before clicking without having to hover first.