What if the are certain chapters you don’t understand? Can you ask the book to clarify?

What if the author’s writing style puts you to sleep? You love the subject matter but cant get through the way the material is presented.

Let’s be fair. You can ask online or search for answers. You can buy or borrow a different book. But then your progress is stalled while you wait for a response or the library to open.

You can still do all these things. What’s wrong with having another tool to supplement? Do we raise our noses at YouTube tutorials and lectures and audiobooks the same way?

None of what you said contradicts what I said, so I guess nice strawman?

if you are confident that learning from ai will work out for you better than learning from humans or human created materials, go ahead.

It’s not a competition now is it? You can learn by going to the library and reading on the subject, enroll in classes physically or online through video courses, you could join a bootcamp if you wanted. Some are free some are not. Some have teachers or mentors you can talk to, but are they going to cater to your every question at all hours of the day? AI offers another (cost effective) avenue for people to learn and they can choose their most effective method or methods to do so. Seems pointless to be so doomer about the learning aspect.

1. AI has been shown to make people stupid and mad.

2. All professors know this. Students are using llms to cheat in exams and skip learning.
3. Gen Z has the lowest attention span and reading comprehension skills mostly due to ai summaries. Few can even sit down and read a book anymore.
4. Using ai for coding and “agents” have eroded the skills of developers. Many have said so and I have seen it among my colleagues too.

Ok? Don’t develop parasocial relationships with AI? Don’t use it to skip learning?

Few people could sit down to read a book before AI. You could take this argument, remove AI and its relevant since social media.

4 is anecdotal but yes that is a side effect of having AI code for you. An accountant is going to become less sharp at math than he was previously if he let’s excel calculate everything for him. You adapt. I’ve never said agent AI is flawless or perfect. But it is undeniably useful that most devs are now using it. Are you going to criticize every dev for not knowing how to code in assembly?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say besides AI bad. World is not black and white. Despite everything else, AI can help enable people to learn things they previously could not. We cant completely control the other stuff but we can absolutely take advantage of a tool to help us.

I think we should be setting expectations here. AI is perfectly capable at this moment to teach a newbie CS 101. Beginners do not write great efficient code because thats not the point at that stage. It should also be able to teach 201 in a general sense. Let’s say for the sake of argument its really bad at teach 300 level concepts. Ok? You would have gotten 2 years worth of CS then from something that would teach you on a personal level. Provide or suggest resources, and even work with you to debug your code. Don’t feel we need to demonize or downplay this. There’s other reasons to hate in AI.

Go ahead and ask Gemini (not exactly top tier LLM) to teach you python from scratch. Ask it to explain functions and for loops. Tell me if it’s a bad as you think. Feel free to post it failing here in the reply.

It’s been objectively measured that AI generates terrible code compared to humans on average

But it’s still good enough code at most levels that developers are using agents to either assist or write it for them. If you used the latest versions of Claude or Codex or even cursor you know this.

So we’re gatekeeping learning to those who read well and have an abundance of time?

YOU are still doing the learning part. AI can simply make it more accessible to those who don’t have the time or dedication to go through some large textbooks or take classes on the topic. Or maybe you will do that, but not ready to commit that time and effort into the subject until you are sure it’s something you want to pursue.

If you learn from an AI you’ll learn like an AI. Which is to say shallow, disjointed, incoherent, and mostly wrong.

Feel free to give an example. But how would that be different from learning via a book, magazine, or YouTube video?

You don’t need to take everything it says as gospel, just like you’d cross reference any Google search of importance.

Yea. Just don’t ask AI how to void legally binding contracts.

Or actually listen to your lawyers after you run it by them.

To me there’s a world of difference between that and asking LLMs too teach you how to knit.

You know you can use AI to help you learn right? Think about all the things you want to learn but feels too deep or daunting to start.

AI can summarize for you. It can translate to English that you can understand and give you examples. You can ask it questions you might be embarrassed to ask actual people.

And you can do it all right now for free. Knowledge is at its most accessible right now. It’s in your interest to utilize it.

I’m imagining anti Microsoft things?

Tell me: what is the monthly subscription price of gamepass? What was it a year ago? 2 years ago? How’s their game library?

I must’ve imagined all that fuckery they did to that service. Surely they would never have done anything like that to that digital asset policy you love so much. We can trust them.

I’ll try to make it clearer for you.

Microsoft made a plan. Great. Anybody can ‘make’ a plan and that plan could sound amazing to some people.

You are nostalgizing the ideal parts of their plan without having to see it play out. How would sharing have really worked? Would the disc be tied to your account forever? Would your friend be able to install from it?

And for sake of argument let’s say Microsoft executed on this best plan ever. Fast forward 10 years and they are looking for more profits somewhere. What’s stopping them from changing the terms of their plan? Pretty sure the TOS you click OK to when installing the game says it lets them alter things as they fit.

You are ignoring the fact that these plans were made over a decade ago. You really expect MS to keep their promise when after watching Sony do this?

Ahh yes. I forgot small claims court doesn’t exist and that all restaurants are mega corps.

Sounds like we should raise minimum wage.

I believe you when you say this.

But why is that the customer’s problem? You have legal protection should you wish to pursue it. The fact that you accept the situation shouldn’t mean it’s on everyone else to support it.

I grew up in the US so I’m annoyed by tipping but personally wouldn’t boycott it. But i would also have no issue with those that do. My biggest gripe is this push for 18-20% as a new normal.

If a waiter does not make enough in tips for minimum wage, the businesses is legally required to cover the difference. So let’s stop with the guilt trip. Part of the problem stems from the same servers that oppose doing away with the tip system because they make so much more from it.

It seems like a pretty fair deal for peace. US ceases aggression and helps rebuild. Iran reopens the strait.

Everything else is window dressing. Promises can always be broken by either side, but this would conclusively end things for now.

Is it great solely for US self interest? Maybe not but no one cares.

You sure are doing a great job helping people understand when you, for the third time, refuse to answer the question about where your source refers to accuracy. You haven’t provided jack.

You sure also sound quite prideful to the fact that this is just about me and my preferences, that you can’t see this is actually how most people view the world.

Tell me, actually answer me here instead of deflecting: Do you really think the world is just stupid? They all use google or Gmail or YouTube or Facebook and dont realize their data is being collected? You think if you just help educate them they will all realize and stop using these services?

No worries though, you won’t need to be intentionally obtuse for longer, outsourcing your thought processes to Google will do that for you, and for free.

I have no worries here. I’m not the one that’s going to fall behind while screaming at the clouds as tech keeps rolling along.

You’re trying to explain by ignoring my question regarding your source not once but twice.

And also conveniently ignoring the actual point being made and instead focusing on whether or not its 75% or 85% or what is an algorithm

And also dismissing arguments because its morally beneath you.

I guess you just like being super pedantic because apparently you do know the difference between directory based searches and what came after it. Feel free to argue how yahoo and altavista was fine and the world really didn’t need Google search though.

The aggregates tell a very different story.

Tell me what aggregates you are seeing. I have no idea what you are looking at on this page that is suppose to prove your point on accuracy.

Because right now you brought up a benchmark site and then just saying how all benchmarks are skewed. That’s fine and all but can you tell me what you are actually looking at so we can be on the same page??

And again, at 75% or 70%, or whatever you imagine current accuracy is, what happened to all the memes about Gemini telling you to add bleach to pancakes or something? Low hanging karma posts just literally disappeared. Why do you think that is? A google search for “funny gpt answers” brings up results from 2024. Let that sink in.

I’m not even going to bother with the “I’m fine paying with my data” bit, because think that’s just a morally broken take.

I imagine it’s quite the burden being so morally superior to the vast majority of humanity.

There’s no such thing as “algorithmic search”

What Larry Page came up with was Pagerank, which is a ranking algorithm.

Bro…

Meaning that there isn’t a LLM that does any benchmarked task with an accuracy above 75%, see https://llm-stats.com/

Tell me what you are seeing. This page you linked shows all top models for AI research at above 80% and the top ones at 90%.

Here is an April article stating Gemini AI summary at 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/technology/google-ai-overviews-accuracy.html

And keep on mind these benchmarks will use more complex searches than what people use normally.

75% sounds like 2025, but let’s say that is the the number we both agree to. That’s still useful enough most of the time that you wouldn’t scroll or search further. AND it requires you to take the stance that technology remains at a standstill and never improves over time. Let me ask you this. 1 year ago reddit and lemmy had plenty of posts showing awful and memey AI summary and search results. Where are those posts now?

Finally the money part. I point you to Youtube. A company that was never , got bought out and still remains free* to this day. Is it enshittified from before? Yes. But its still not withdrawing a dime from my bank account.

I guess the part I don’t understand here is that you must know that all these companies make money from their users, one way or another, and still you believe you aren’t paying for any of it. Are you ok with how they make that money, then?

I am perfectly aware of the situation. But i don’t have a doomerism view on it that a lot of you share. If we never shared our any of our data,

1. We would not have these services most likely. Where do you think traffic and routing data comes from when you use Google Maps? Do you think the average person would prefer paying some company for GPS, and worse everything experience? Would the average person pay monthly for something like a 100 MB email mailbox?

2. For that reason I’m more ok trading data for service. Most of the time that data use is for monetary purposes which motivates the company to also improve said service (to a point).

That said I fully support more regulation to the industry on how data is handled in general.

Text search is fine but not better than something that can both find you the most likely result you are looking for AND explain it to you if its too technical.

Text search is what Yahoo and Ask Jeeves did. Then Google improved on it by adding algorithmic search.

I bring up accuracy because its not 100% accurate. But if it works 85- 90 percent of the time, which it currently does according to benchmarks, that’s more efficient than Text search even accounting for times you need to adjust.

And no its not as cost efficient, but again I dont care as the end user because its not my cost.

You really believe that these multi trillion companies don’t make a profit? That they offer their products for free? Such a naive take.

Are you like, being purposefully ignorant here? I’m pointing out the fact that these trillion dollar companies weren’t profitable for years on end before they became so. And in the end their profitability is irrelevant to me. I don’t care how much AI costs them if they arent charging me for it.

And stop with your pedantic “you think free is free omg” argument. Go pay with actual money for your subpar searches then while your data is still being collected everywhere