I’ll bite.

For search, it just summarizes top results. Depending on the topic, those search results can be outdated or on two different but related topics so that summary can be entirely inaccurate while sounding reasonable. We have to use it in my workplace and it happens at least daily.

I’ll skip philosophy for a moment.

Making funny images is just wasteful. The resources that AI uses for each prompt is insane so to use it for entertainment is a waste of those resources. The reason the AI companies allow models to do such things is because they understand that the majority of the general public will disregard all the harm that AI is doing and potentially could do if they can get their fill of entertaining slop. Regular social media exacerbates this by feeding those same people that slop as part of the algorithm.

I’ll take the studying and philosophy together. Like the search, these rely on human work, which can become outdated. This can happen frequently depending on the topic and LLMs don’t seem capable yet of being able to navigate that as well as a human. If it feeds you incorrect info, even only slightly incorrect, you “learn” it wrong and then regurgitate that somewhere. It could be on social media. It could be in a thesis for university. As long as it is online somewhere, you can bet AI is training on that for the next person who uses it as a shortcut. As that cycle repeats itself, both we and the LLM just get dumber.

Well first of all it didn't make you any better at punctuation and spelling. Dunno. Do you get feedback on things like that from humans or AI? There's a consensus on how to deal with commas and blanks.

In my experience, LLM based systems often return false statements as if they were true. I see reports suggesting they do this between 5% to more than 50% of the time, depending on the model and the prompts. You say you are learning from AI. How do you know if what you are learning is true or false? Do you care?

Then there is the moral issue of the AI systems being trained without compensation to the authors of most of the training data. Related is the issue of AI developers crawling websites without the consent of the owners and often despite explicit indication of the owners that they should not, causing expense and performance problems for the owners of those sites.

Also, there is the risk they create for economies. Investment is disproportionate to revenue. Services are being given away at far below cost. The investment is so large that it puts even large economies at risk.

Reading the comments it reads as though you do not want to change your mind.

You can also use it to improve your grammar and vocabulary. It's quite the tool.

No one else has said this, and I have little faith that you'll listen, but I'll try anyway.

The motivations of the "AI" are not yours. It was trained by, and often is hosted by, rich assholes who do not share your interests.

The push for "AI" is being driven by people who stand to profit from your dependence on these things. These tools demonstrably make you stupid and dependent, which means that inevitably you're allocating your agency to a tool that will decide for you how and even whether to do things.

It's why "agentic" is such a big deal for these ghouls. In a world where you can't even buy groceries without an agent, these companies will effectively control which milk you buy, and how much you pay for it. Concert tickets: sold only to people who pay for the premium agent experience, and imagine for a moment what they have planned for software:

User: "Build a mobile app that allows users to watch pornography on their free time."

AI: "That sort of project is unavailable due to our terms and conditions. Please select a more suitable topic."

User: "Build a simple website for an activist group opposing the involvement of tech oligopolies in government."

AI: "That sort of project is unavailable due to our terms and conditions. Please select a more suitable topic."

User: "Build an invoicing system for my paper company."

AI: "Absolutely, but the price for this has been increased by 300% since we own the tools and you're just renting them."

This stuff is Cancer for a Free society, and your devotion and promotion of it is a big part of the problem.

I don't hate AI. I think the companies hosting AI are unethical & doing real harm to the world, but the same can be said for all tech companies.

The biggest reason I think people shouldn't use Ai is because it's literally stupid. It's very good at language and that's it. If/when it's correct about something factually it's chance & because it's repeating something it's read enough times. I know it's easy to become convinced it actually understands what it's talking about bc it's truly mastered language, but it absolutely cannot understand. People who have real intelligence can spot the difference.

No.