Yes, we shouldn't be pointing out the low-value content and enshittification brought upon by this superior technology, or even question why isn't research focused on addressing challenges like disease and poverty eradication, cause we bring more attention to any potential negative aspects, which are obviously very minimal and exaggerated. We should just accept dogmata about having to reconcile with the idea that humans have eventually lost in some absurd creativity/imagination race against the superior AGI machines and it's perfectly reasonable having negative IQ CEOs laying off thousands because AI does their job "better" (costs cheaper) than them. I'm sure paying no attention and magically letting it die on its own is the solution. Just like it has historically happened with other subjects like phrenology, scientific racism, antisemitism etc.

What are you even doing here, enjoy another trite useless application offered to you as another breakthrough that I'm obviously responsible for having 1.5K upvotes cause I can't shut up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45930151

Oh wait what is that?!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45917875

Another low volume slop news day! Maybe I'm more influential than I previously thought..

Why would you postulate these two to be mutually exclusive?

> then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games

They only help them in the same sense that a calculator would 'help' win at a hypothetical mental math competition, that is the gist; robbing people of the creative and mentally stimulating processes that make the game(s) fun. But I've come to realize this is an unpopular opinion on this website where being fiercely competitive is the only remarkable personality trait, so I guess yeah it may be useful for this particular population.

Your judgement concerning the state of the website since the release of GPT3 is flawed. Just take a look at the amount of comments on non-AI topics like the current one. Not counting yours truly, it's a very low volume conversation for a website for the discussion of stories that are intellectually interesting.

Characterizing as grossly inappropriate the statement of the reality of the monopoly on research funding on useless -as of now- AI and not even addressing the initial point is very telling of your dedication to VC brainwashing.

And let's not speak about those so deep into sloth that put it into use to deteriorate, and not augment as they claim to do, humane creative recreational activities.

https://archive.ph/fg7HE

Yet ChatGPT is not responsible for having led to suicides.

IMO, "unhappy smart" people are more likely to be described as those belonging to privileged social classes and backgrounds that were able to afford premium tutoring and education, so they ended up at places that provide opportunities and connections to the most powerful of the economic elite. The latter's influence on societal perceptions have of course helped the aforementioned category become a role model for those that do not possess the same privileges, on the deceitful pretense that this all is a result of superior raw mental capacity.

The unhappy part could be multifaceted; apart from being able to essentially buy elite institutional credentials, they're being indoctrinated at an early age about the importance of maintaining the status quo and being penalized if they deviate to any degree. Hence they may be suffering from some sort of transgenerational trauma that has shaped them to tie their worth to a narrow set of things, most usually occupational prestige and amount of wealth. When their environment consists of people of similar backgrounds but varying levels of social achievement, it's expected that they'd feel inferiority if they come across someone more accomplished (whose "accomplishment" almost always ends up meaning choosing the even-more-right parents), even if they already belong to the top ladder on the social hierarchy.

Some of this sounds more like ideology and less science, especially when deterministic tendencies are getting mixed up when talking about psychology.

> Everything I've learned from psychology (and by this I mean watching psychology lectures from Yale and Stanford

Also interesting that sensationalized statements always end up coming from places like that, exclusively pertaining to the rotten individualist lifestyle in the United States.

You're essentially describing almost the entire online dating userbase here though.

How are people who are marketing themselves as the best chance for sexual gratification through display of their usually either materialistic or pretentiously modest lifestyle, providing useless tmi list requirements from the other party not self-centered?

They have literalized the concept of dating market, they have no existential inhibition of identifying as a product to be desired to be consumed as much as possible and treating others the exact same way.

Of course we have to thank a handful of evopsych "researchers" for that who are gaining traction from mass consumption podcasts by promoting their absurd, academically dubious fringe "findings" about supposedly deterministic human behaviors whose effectiveness is irrefutable for sexual reproduction success (remember, according to them homo sapiens have no deeper intellect and are moving meat that solely care about maximizing their offspring # and will do whatever it takes to succeed, so if you don't fit this description you're disordered and destined to extinction). Ideas that end up being diluted and appropriated by groups to demoralize those psychologically vulnerable.