Doing this also allows asking it questions, like "explain that for a lay person" or " I still don't understand that, please give me examples." — Hanover

Honestly, I don't think A.I. is reliable at doing this. Its only good if you know what you're looking for and are both willing and able to check what its saying. I sometimes use the A.I. on search engines as a quick way to look for an answer, but I always check the sources it gives and if I can't find an unambiguous verification I don't take on the answer. In fact, I find it common that A.I. completely misrepresents knowedge in papers. Its actually very rare the I find that it gives me an answer that right off the bat I don't find questionable to some degree or have skepticism. Its not even that uncommon that I see some sort of direct contradiction straight up in the answer. Albeit, I still think the A.I. still will get a signfiicant proportion of things correct; its just that that isn't really good enough because what we want is consistency, and you can't do that even if quite a small amount of things are wrong. There is then also the issue I think that if you are naive on a topic you might ask it questions that don't actually really make sense, and the A.I. is still going to give you a nonsensical answer anyway.

But if all you do is parrot what AI tells you, you're no different than the kid who copied straight out of the encyclopedia (remember those?) for his research project. — Hanover

Your point is an important distinction to draw; between using AI as a crutch or tool. It can be difficult at first to know where the line in the sand is, but it's there.

The telltale sign (in my opinion) of "too much AI" is atrophy. Of a skill, memory or knowledge. Once atrophy sets in due to an over-reliance on AI, it is time to take a step back and reassess your relationship with the technology. Unless that which is lost is best forgotten, sometimes being the case.

Artificial intelligence is, as you point out, an excellent tool for exploration and a quasi-mirroring effect or service. But this relies on the user being self-motivated and willing to take the initiative, to be responsible for themselves.

Your point is an important distinction to draw; between using AI as a crutch or tool. It can be difficult at first to know where the line in the sand is, but it's there. — Bret Bernhoft

The difference between humans and AI is that humans have the ability to create new ideas, whereas AI does not.

The difference between humans and AI is that humans have the ability to create new ideas, whereas AI does not. — MoK

I can see where you're coming from. But can we agree to disagree on whether AI has the ability to create novel ideas?

In my experience, modern AI can create or "synthesize" new/unprecedented ideas from existing sources. Perhaps AI doesn't have the ability to experience synchronicity or artistic inspiration like a human? Is this close to what you mean by "create new ideas"?

To add context, I asked ChatGPT its thoughts. Here is a screenshot of the answer I received:

I can see where you're coming from. But can we agree to disagree on whether AI has the ability to create novel ideas? — Bret Bernhoft

By an idea, I mean a mental event that is not reducible to something else, yet it is meaningful to us. For example, when I say "cup", we both understand what we are talking about. "Cup" in here is referring to an idea. The idea is something more than the word. In the same manner, a sentence refers to something more than the proper combination of words. So, given that we agree with what the idea means, I don't think that AI has the capacity to create a new idea since it cannot experience an idea. We experience ideas, work with them, talk about them, and create new ideas always. Thinking to me is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones.

So, given that we agree with what the idea means, I don't think that AI has the capacity to create a new idea since it cannot experience an idea. We experience ideas, work with them, talk about them, and create new ideas always. Thinking to me is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. — MoK

This is a fascinating perspective. Subjective, somatic experience is necessary for ideation. Is that what you are saying?

Mental events can only be experienced and created by the mind. Any living creature has at least one mind. Creatures with the ability to think have more than one mind, so-called the conscious and subconscious minds. An AI is a mindless entity, so it cannot experience ideas. In the same manner, an AI cannot think, given the definition of thinking, which is a process of working with old ideas to create new ones.

I have found AI extremely useful in bouncing ideas off of. You have to aware of its sycophant leanings, phrasing issues so that it doesn't just agree or confirm, but I do find it helpful. It's also a very powerful search engine that directs you into where the mainstream areas of debate might lie and that allows for deeper research on other sites. — Hanover

Agreed. Especially with the sycophantic stuff- people have been and will continue to be extremely deluded. But they can be useful if used with care for some topics.

But yeah - people ought not confuse what it does - compute words on a probabilistic basis, with what it is not, which is intelligent or anything remotely sentient.

Especially with the sycophantic stuff- people have been and will continue to be extremely deluded. But they can be useful if used with care for some topics. — Manuel

The new ChatGPT 5.0 is much better at being honest. That was part of their major upgrade. I used to work around the old one by characterizing my posts as being presented by my opponents so that I could get a more honest response.

Yes, I've noticed it's toned down it's endless flaterry quite a lot.

What's concerning is that some people want the old model back, as a "companion" or buddy.

But for out interests, this version is better.