Claude, explain
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

Before AI went public people quite willingly gave up thinking as soon as we got texting capability. To save keystrokes we took to abbreviating everything and creating simple slang terms for complex conditions, which trained us to think in those simplistic terms all the time. Now we gloss over most details because we don't think we need them. We know this guy is racist or that woman's a Karen because it's obvious, duh. Why bother considering multiple sides of a situation when somebody else already did the thinking for us and slapped on an easy to consume label? We can make value judgements so much faster now, allowing us to scroll ahead to the next item in our feed, or the next conversation subject, or the next voting decision. Barely scratching the surface is fine if you pretend that's all there is, and demonize anybody who thinks a situation deserves more thought.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry if I'm misjudging you, but this sounds like an appeal to futility. Hey, people are already not using their brains, so why not use them even less with AI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    AI is definitely encouraging general cognitive decline, same as any tool degrades a muscle or skill it replaces. The industrial revolution degraded human physical fitness. Social media has degraded human interaction, attention span and thinking skills, and oversimplifies every issue to an acronym or slang label because the prime directive is brevity. But the end state is only futility when people aren't willing to address their own role in the whole process - which they aren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh people invented shorthand slang in the telegraph days, at least the operators did

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    uuuuuhhhhhhh and they invented contractions even earlier!!1!

    Common people sending or receiving telegrams was miniscule compared to the tens of millions of people who started texting when it became available. Being contrary is fine but not when it makes zero sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    To be fair, t9 text entry is so much slower than modern touch screen keyboards, nuance was definitely prohibitively time consuming for a while

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Also texting cost money at one point and was based on length, so you had to abbreviate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Interestingly, serving those texts was literally free for the carriers. They used the empty space at the end of blocks of data the phones were using to stay in contact with the network. That's why it had that very specific character limit.

    SMS fees were pure profit for them.

  • source
  • parent