• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    You can always make an argument that some new thing is bad by pointing out it is solving problems that were already solved or solving problems no one cares about.

    That’s not the issue. I’m not a luddite. The issue is that you can’t rely on its answers. The accuracy varies wildly. If you trust it implicitly there’s no way of telling what you end up with. Human learning process normally involves comparing information to previous information, some process of vetting, during which your brain “muscles” are exercised so they become better at it all the time. It’s like being fed in bed and never getting out to do anything by yourself, and to top it off you don’t even know if you’re being fed correct information.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The issue is that you can’t rely on its answers.

      Cough… Wikipedia…cough. You remember being told how Wikipedia wasn’t accurate and the only true sources were books made by private companies that no one could correct?

      Human learning process normally involves comparing information to previous information, some process of vetting, during which your brain “muscles” are exercised so they become better at it all the time. It’s l

      Argument from weakness. Classic luddite move. I am old enough to remember the fears that internet search engines would do this.

      In any case no one is forcing you to use it. I am sure if you called up Britianica and told them to send you a set they would be happy to.