I’m well aware that CEOs are pushing the exact opposite of responsible AI use. But that doesn’t mean it is fully impossible to use the tool responsibly, which is also substantiated in your linked article:
A small subset of participants though – less than 10% – worked differently and used AI as a tool to gather data that they then analysed themselves. These individuals made more accurate predictions than others participants and showed stronger brain activation too.
Ming suggests that ultimately, the goal could be a form of “hybrid intelligence” where humans and machines “do the hard stuff” together. By this she means we need to think first and use tools to challenge us later, rather than simply letting them answer questions for us. Kosmyna agrees and suggests learning subjects without AI tools first to build a foundation and then think about using LLMs.
It’s like dynamite. It can cause a lot of harm, but also make reasonable things like mining and demolition a lot easier. The difference is Alfred Nobel was smart enough not to distribute free samples on every street corner.
AI writing has a high consistency in form and no consistency in conviction. The way to recognize AI writing is to question the will behind the writing, because AI has none save for answering a prompt.
Your business websites are a great example. You may have wanted them to be neutrally informative, instead they schizophrenically gush about contradictory digital philosophy standpoints without connecting to a big picture. There is no thinking mind behind it, just an answering machine.
There are no points of yours to refute, because you did not make any, and AI cannot make any.