a.i should not exists

 

Stories, songs, rituals, clay tablets, papyrus scrolls, manuscripts, books, pamphlets, journals, newspapers, radio, television, documentaries, search engines, online encyclopedias, databases, intelligent assistants, generative AI, ...

So what?

Where does our individual knowledge come from? Only from our own experience? Hardly. Are we only allowed to pass on as our knowledge what we have actually experienced ourselves? Hardly. But if we are allowed to pass on second-hand knowledge, which sources are permitted and which are prohibited? Who shall determine how we may acquire and pass on our knowledge? Isn't knowledge such a valuable commodity that the question of its origin is actually meaningless?

The real danger to humanity is not knowledge, but is ignorance.

(written without the use of AI)

 

Part of the issue is that there was a time when people understood exactly what fact was versus sensationalism, and a tool versus complete reliance. So they would go to an Encyclopedia or University document, or authorised factual document to find out.
While they still exist, those documents even though accurate, cannot and will never update as fast as the developers work on A.I.

As a small example hypothetically - If you wanted to know what happened with a remote volcanic eruption in a tiny town that happened yesterday, you have very few options but to rely on media or A.I. The Encyclopedias and factual documents will never keep up unfortunately. If someone asked the thread question regarding do we have our priorities in order? Then I would possibly consider saying no we do not.

 

Spoiler: !!!WARNING!!!

IF Y'ALL DONT STOP PICKIN ON ME, IM FINNA TELL ME MUM ON YOOS!

 

I'm not quite so sure about that even if we are talking current events and encyclopedias. People have been fed propaganda forever to sway their minds to a particular ideology, usually through fear "of the other" to instill hate and foment anger, usually in the favor of a top 1% group of the wealthy.

 

Gemini can handle this :

Spoiler

1. The Psychology Behind the "Fake Guru"
From the perspective of the person posting, there is usually a mix of three selfish motivations:

• The Dopamine of "Looking Smart": There is an immediate ego boost in posting a comprehensive, well-structured answer and receiving upvotes or "Thank yous." It validates their intelligence, even if that intelligence was borrowed.
  
  
• The "Karma" Economy: On platforms like Reddit or Stack Overflow, high reputation scores grant status or ability (like posting in restricted subreddits). Using AI is the fastest way to farm this reputation without putting in the 10,000 hours of mastery.
  
  
• Fear of Silence: Some people feel a compulsive need to participate in a conversation to feel included, even if they have zero value to add. AI gives them the script to participate.

2. The Danger of the "Hallucination Loop"
The biggest practical issue isn't just that it's annoying; it’s that it degrades the quality of information.

The Core Problem: AI is trained on the average of the internet. It provides consensus, not insight.

When someone copies a chatbot answer:

1. They cannot verify accuracy: If they don't know the topic, they don't know if the AI is hallucinating (making things up).
   
   
2. They miss the edge cases: A chatbot will give you the standard procedure. A human expert will tell you, "Technically you should do X, but in the field, we do Y because X causes the machine to jam." That nuance is lost.
   
   
3. The Dead Internet Theory: Eventually, AI models will be trained on forum posts written by other AIs, creating a feedback loop of degrading quality—often called "model collapse."

3. Why it feels like a betrayal
We have an implicit social contract in forums: Sincerity.

If I ask, "How do I fix this leaky pipe?" and you answer, I assume you are a person who knows about plumbing. If you are just a proxy for a database I could have queried myself, you are wasting my time and cluttering the thread. You are effectively "catfishing" the community intellectually.

Summary
There is no virtuous point to it. It is strictly vanity (looking smart) or greed (farming engagement/karma). It creates a "high noise, low signal" environment that drives actual experts away because they get tired of correcting confident, wrong robots.

 

So-called experts get stuff wrong every single day. In terms of plugins, do all these people comparing plugins in Plugin Doctor do so because they think the developers are just having some DSP fun by adding problems to their plugins? Does your DAW have a changelog a mile long because the programmers felt like adding some practical jokes that day?

 

That solely leads to people posting AI gibberish without even mentioning that it's AI. What is worse?

Well then a lot of dumbasses must have been posting a pretty load of crap all night.
(oh they actually did - and it's funny as sh¡t)

edit: oops I forgot the link. bwaha, well, I'm just human.

https://bsky.app/profile/gregjenner.bsky.social/post/3lnhxkdywzc2m

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2025 at 10:55 PM

" You can't trust AI completely". It got the answers it spits out by reading information from humans. If it is wrong, it's generally because people have posted so much garbage, incorrect, biased, and completely unqualified information on the internet for 30 years. If you want someone to blame for mistakes, all you need to do is read some of the non-AI stuff posted right here to this very forum.

"Trusting" computers is something people do every single day. The metal shavings that don't end up in your food? Computers. The car, plane, train, or other motor vehicle you put your life ins hands every time you ride in one? Maybe you should never check out the software called Solidworks which almost all manufacturing engineers use to setup machining on. One extra click by a careless engineer and that Boeing you are flying in has an extra hole CNC machined into some part in its engine.

"It told me to use .3 seconds reverb, and it was actually supposed to be a delay! I knew these warehouse size datacenter supercomputers suck!"

This sounds like boomers at some company where they spend so much time trying to discredit some newly hired employee that they invariably find themselves in the parking lot with their stuff in a box. That is the fear of AI. Plain and simple.

 

If you consider everything that we think we know, how much of it is actually a true reality? I tend to put my indeterminate thoughts on a timeline, and monitor for any situational changes, patterns or specific events, etc. It's a form of self-correcting and my knowledge of the world improves steadily over time. Many people are stuck on a short news cycle and can't remember what happened last week, but that's just the way the algorithm works.

 

Some so-called experts intentionally get stuff wrong every single day, depending on what field they are in.

 

Sure, but we're both old enough to remember a time where News reports were consistent and the only thing that deviated was the level of detail
A.I is a current event brother. It doesn't spout correct information more regularly than it should. So yeah, it is relevant.

 

It’s even worse and I’ve encountered this many times. AI generates information that isn’t based on anything. It takes one fact and extrapolates it, projecting it onto other similar things thereby inventing them and presenting them as true
When you ask him where you get this nonsense from, it’s not true, he says, “Yes, thank you, everything is a little different.” otherwise he would simply provide a link to the source

 

So explain to me how that is any different than incorrect information people post from other sources? Do people make threads about that?

I find it highly amusing in fact, that the reason why this thread was started was because I told the thread starter he gave an incorrect information from an AI. I'm supposed to believe that someone gives the exact same incorrect response as ChatGPT trying to identify a specific Kontakt piano from the middle of a mixed song? Yeah, right. Now he is all "Ai who?" This is the kind of person worried about some sort of "mission critical" information being wrong because it came from an AI. Action without motivations are never the full story, I am afraid.

It's even worse if he did really guess it without asking AI. It means the "human" provided information is identical to that of the same AI he is now complaining about with this thread. Not the first time, either.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 12:07 AM

Maybe, perhaps, this is the case you describe here.
I had previously thought, as you said, that AI was just sourcing wrong information, but I was so amazed that it’s making up information so easily. Then, anyone who copies it to forums without reflection is simply creating false confirmations and sources for AI in the future. This will grow exponentially, something that people like Pulse and others don’t even consider.

 

so called "AI hallucination". They absolutely do it. I mentioned before awhile ago it got me to take my entire tower Mac Pro apart to access a usb header on the logic board to install this wicked and cheap little Fenvi wireless PCI card mod. Well imagine my surprise when I finally got behind all of the fans, etc (a true PITA and waste of like 2 hours) only to find out the usb header I needed to access was not there. Parts do not disappear from motherboards. When you go back and tell it wtf, it is like "oops?".

Was that AI's fault I acted upon incorrect information, or did something like post it as an answer to someone? Nope. 100% my fault.
Incorrect answers remain incorrect, no matter if someone gets them from AI or shamelessly tries to name drop a dead guy to support an answer, and all of the other sorts of "proof" which often accompany bad answers and BS.

 

The news, depending on the story (i.e. war propaganda, pandemics real or created, et al), was never consistent, and rival papers (not so much rivalry now that every major news organization is owned by a cartel of billionaires) would pose a different slant on the facts or with gusto wholesale fabricate it on the whim of the owner. AI of course as you say is a new phenomena that at time present is trying to be controlled, reigned in by the very few corporations that have the many billions in cash to put into creating "products" soley for control and power, not for making the world a better place (huge resource hungry data centers suck power and water from wherever they are and will ultimately smother sustainability of the surrounding localities in their proximity...but I digress).

How much correct information should AI correctly spout?

 

After a long time here I've started to use the ignore list for the first time to avoid the confirmed AI-copy-paste users. They act like "middleware" between the forum and the chat box. Yeah, the irony and stuff..

But it's getting weirder to use the forum because a few of them post a huge part of the posts. This is happening on Reddit and other forums like the OP says. An AI-disclaimer rule was created some months ago, but not followed by many. If something can be abused it often ends up abused. And the mods can't possibly check it all.

On YT for now disabling the shorts and distrusting any channel created after late 2024 works.

I get is annoying all the threads about messes caused by AIs, but most of them have a point. And nobody is saying that AI is not helpful in a good bunch of uses.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 2:04 AM

It should...if only to correct your grammar.

I agree with what @clone said about the formatting. At least it is presented more clearly than the average forum user, but it's not as succinct as the best of us can be, that's for sure.

I also detect, using my pseudo-psychological analysis, many who seem to seek validation in life by answering every question as quickly as possible.While there may be a cringy or annoying element to that, if the query is done well it can yield great results, and if it's put in a spoiler I think that's respectful of others and useful.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 2:21 AM

yeah i feel you. though a lot of the time since ive joined, i see threads here and im like, just google that shit. people be asking questions that you can simply just look up majority of the time, its like they didnt even try. it usually doesnt actually require my expertise and experience to find the answer

so i feel like the quality of the question being asked plays a large part in that as well