If it is quick, yes.

Oh yeah, it's insane. The only way to truly protect your identity on the internet is by not using the internet. Second best would be tor, I suppose

Less contagion but higher lethality is in my book just as scary. From what I read it seems quite lethal.

That is not true, a lot of it is sent willingly by your browser.

And they could display it if the website was well done

And then you become even more identifiable cause you're part of the 10 madmen in Google's database who do it

The point is not that they know your IP, but that even your IP already gives away information. That's why they start with the information, rather than the IP being the source.

This is not intended to be for people who understand how this works.

And as someone else said, probably vibe coded.

I'll let you know after my round trip to Proxima Centauri :D

I know about the Fermi Paradox! The resolution of it that makes most sense to me is the Great Filter idea. Looking at our own civilization... Yeah. That checks out.

Any business that hasn't moved away from american providers or markets dependency at this point has very shitty management.

It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve.

Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article?

As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking.

I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking.

Those are important studies but nothing shocking. The conclusion to draw from them is the same one we've drawn from all technologies that have improved our lives to some degree: Without them, we tend to either be incompetent as losing access to them isn't worth planning for, or we are demotivated because why would we deprive ourselves from technology that makes our work so much less exhausting?

It doesn't necessarily remove our capacity to think (and the article falsely generalises to critical thinking), it shifts what kind of thinking we do.

If AI is as good or better than I am at writing code, then I'll switch my brain to only do the orchestrating and architecture rather than the writing code part. And yes, if you remove AI, then the switch will cause me to perform less than I used to before AI, but not permanently, only until I get used to it again.

If an AI is better than a doctor at finding cancer indicators, then the doctor will focus their mind on finding solutions only rather than splitting it on both the detection and solution.

This is not new, not bad, and I'll even go to the extent of saying it's a great use of AI: Humans evolved for specialization. The less varied the tasks are, the better we are at the subset we specialize in. That's what has driven our rapid technological and societal advances in the past millenia.

But, AI has many issues and many detrimental applications as well, so don't see this comment as a full endorsement of AI.

Not training, no, but warm up. And no, it is not about critical thinking, it's about reading comprehension and calculations.