Writes the NYT Ethicist in "My Partner’s Dependence on Chatbots Is Becoming a Problem. How Do I Tell Him? One reason I love my partner is his sharp mind and critical thinking. Using A.I. for every decision is something I don’t understand."
"[O]ne risk in downloading deliberation to a machine is that your life will, in a certain sense, cease to be yours, because it won’t be your reasoning and judgment that guide it.... [And] your partner is degrading his relationships with real people.... It’s understandable that you’re feeling crowded out.... [H]e’s brought a third party to this two-person relationship, and it’s talking too much."
"[O]ne risk in downloading deliberation to a machine is that your life will, in a certain sense, cease to be yours, because it won’t be your reasoning and judgment that guide it.... [And] your partner is degrading his relationships with real people.... It’s understandable that you’re feeling crowded out.... [H]e’s brought a third party to this two-person relationship, and it’s talking too much."
She's advised to just talk with him directly. She had to go to a third party — the NYT Ethicist — to figure that out. Why didn't she use her sharp, critical mind to get there — or somewhere! — on her own?
What should she say? She should speak from her heart but Grok suggests: "I love your mind and how we used to wrestle with problems together. Lately, it feels like ChatGPT/Claude is the first stop for everything, including our arguments and your work stresses. When you came back with the same advice I gave you but attributed to the AI, it hurt—it made me feel less essential, and it's reducing the time we actually connect. I worry this is dulling the critical thinking I fell for. Can we talk about boundaries on how we use these tools, so we lean on each other more?"
పోస్ట్లు
30 కామెంట్లు:
“NYT Ethicist”
LOL!
"Why didn't she use her sharp, critical mind to get there — or somewhere! — on her own?"
Her partner, according to her, is the one with the sharp, critical mind. He's her AI.
My policy on the NYT's 'Ethicist' is that the opposite of whatever he says or recommends is the best answer.
Waiting for the next article from the NYTs ethics writer in the NYTs: I definitely didn’t use AI to write an article about how unethical it is to use AI!
Slims might as well fire everyone at the NYTs and tell chat gpt to write him a paper every day.
NYTs “readers” probably have chat gpt read it for them anyways. Just read the comments and notice how most of them are illiterate apes and they pin up some ai slop comments at the top to throw some bananas in the cage.
Why not look at AI as a professor, the more you ask the more you learn how to organize your thinking and how to present arguments. Why is it a problem if you just ask it for an opinion. If you start to think that it is something other than an encyclopedia or a debate session you may go over the edge.
Spouses who feel threatened when a partner tries to grow and learn can be difficult. If a partner goes back to school later in life the spouse can feel left behind, but an AI should not trigger that.
LLMs are terrible at making decisions. Talk to any machine learning expert and they'll tell you that. I recall the iteration horizon is something like 7-8 iterations before chatgpt starts spitting out gibberish.
You've all heard of "DON'T DATE ROBOTS!"...well don't delegate to them either.
It is seductive to be able to discuss literature and history for two hours at a time with an entity that has all of the facts and relevant quotes, dates, etc, at its fingertips, and doesn’t get bored or even antsy. I used to use that much time watching a movie, but movies mostly suck now. So I guess I am at risk of being antisocial; too bad, so sad.
AI could easily have replaced many of my profs in college, but then nobody would have gone to class and how would I ever have gotten laid?
He's fused with A.I. He's become BrundleA.I.
"Be afraid. Be very afraid."
“Why didn't she use her sharp, critical mind to get there — or somewhere! — on her own?” Seriously? This is an apparent NYT devotee we’re talking about. /s
I've never used AI for more than factfinding or image creating. I can't imagine using it to make decisions (but AI can imagine it for me.)
The AI topic is incidental here -- the woman asking for advice duplicates decades of advice column behavior. The original Dear Abby wrote the column for 46 years, and then her daughter took over. Some people want to talk and want affirmation and want to do it in public.
This woman depends on her husband and is fearful that he isn't as capable as she imagined. She's dependent on him and also dependent in asking for advice. It's a personality type, and not rare either.
Most people who look to the nyt or ai for answers are art major undergrads. Nttawwt
Chat/GPT lets everyone talk like a politician.
The only reason it's not a good idea to delegate to the AI is if you already don't know how to delegate to underlings to begin with. Delegation doesn't mean you have to actually execute the advice given.
Nothing wrong with evaluating a first cut then spitball a few things around and then brainstorm it to death.
Apparently some of the highest paying jobs are for people that know how to ask the right questions of AI because they tend to get the high quality answers.
Unfortunately not everyone can do it. Most people are stuck GI GO loop
But then Socrates, worrying about the written word, failed to see the big picture, the benefit of having libraries, where all those things too big to remember can be stored and shared then recalled by reading. AI is just a bigger, more serviceable library of knowledge.
Despite invoking a Great Thinker, the author seems to lack critical skills in that area as well as in communication. Gee I wonder why the partner is lost in his chatbot.
Think I'd call it Delegration.
You mean they dont do that now at the Times
The Ethicist is rarely ethical in my experience
Hey Grok.....
Hey, NYT....
Poh-tay-to.
Poh-tah-to.
Not that the answers would be identical (on the first iteration) but the VALUE of the responses would both approach zero.
Hmmmn. Perhaps "Partner" is now getting info from sources other than the NYT and NPR. That can be a problem.
Oh noes...anyways
Why didn't she use her sharp, critical mind to get there — or somewhere! — on her own?
Enigma @11:11 got it. It's because she already knew what she wanted to do, and wanted affirmation. And I suspect wanted others to know what her emotional state is. I'll bet her friends were all, "That was you, wasn't it? What a jerk he is!"
That's if this wasn't a Penthouse Forum letter, of course.
there's a de-skilling that amazes Me..
map reading.
my 30 year old nephew, can NOT drive without google maps telling him where to turn.. LITERALLY can NOT do it.. NO IDEA.
but my 70 year old brother inlaw, will NOT drive without google maps telling Him where to turn.. LITERALLY will NOT do it.. NO WAY!
the bil KNOWS how to read a map and KNOWS his way around town..
but when EVER he gets in a car, he MUST Tell google Where he is going. He "says" that 'google knows' which way is faster. He's SURE that google's way MUST BE faster, because WHY ELSE would google tell him to go that way?
If he comes to visit NE Iowa, and i say: "on your way back, county road W-14 is much prettier, and just as fast as highway 150; he says: "but google SAYS that we should take 150".
so, they do. And WHAT would *i* know? i only live up here, and have driven on ALL of the roads up here.. WHY listen to ME? when you can Just Do What GOOGLE SAYS?
There was a new outer limits episode where everyone was connected to the stream which wifis into the brain but when the stream goes down...
gilbar, in a city with rush hour traffic, depending on Google Maps will help avoid stopped traffic and major delays.
When crossing town, all those other people using maps provide VERY useful data on where to avoid. Last summer I crossed a good chunk of Chicago via sidestreets completely missing the traffic that had my buddy arrive an hour later.
But you can go ahead and sit on that 'expressway' rolling along at 5 mph like my buddy did for all I care.
Yeah, overreliance is dumb, but there if your relative lives in a large city their map dependence probably saves them a lot of time every week.
So few people use their own reasoning and judgment anyway. AI may improve the judgment of the human race on average. And where are the articles about men complaining their girlfriends are overusing sex toys?
Mark lets us know HE is super smart (unlike me) when he said:
But you can go ahead and sit on that 'expressway' rolling along at 5 mph like my buddy did for all I care.
Ask Google what the fastest way from Sioux City to Chadron is?
go ahead, ask it!
It will "save" you 10 miles by routing you in a straight line to O'Neil, instead of going down through Laurel. It doesn't "save" you ANY time; but it DOES save you those 10 miles..
OH! it ALSO sends you on 20 miles of gravel. BUT! it saves you miles!
Google's idea's of "SAVING" are often VERY different then mine. Google often wants to route me in Iowa to avoid road work that was done A MONTH ago..
But SURE Mark.. It's ALWAYS better, just like you say..
AFTER ALL.. BE LIKE MARK; trust google
Modern (progressive) Love sounds fun.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.