Facebook in one ear and chatgpt in the other. We are doomed.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
88 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
88390 readers
3672 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
At least they're not asking grok.
ugh. but they probably are, aren't they?
gRoK iS tHiS tRuE?
We're seriously fuckin' doomed, as a species. All the morons are outsourcing their decision making to people who've learned to game the system exclusively for profit.
Honestly, this is nothing new.
Listening to ChatGPT is a solid improvement over listening to Tucker Carlson.
Don't get me wrong, it's not good! I don't exactly trust the Sam Altmans of the world. But this is the same circus, different clowns.
It really is nightmarish. I don’t know how else to say it. Something’s gotta give, but I’m afraid it’s not going to.
I’ve always felt lucky to have been born Gen X. The music, the movies, the sports… all the legendary moments and all the huge breakthroughs to have been able to experience.
But now, sadly- there is another bonus, I’ll never live long enough to see end-result of AI erasing human culture. It’s enough to see it so quickly and thoroughly hobble the younger generation’s ability to think for themselves… we also have to see people dumb enough to enable it to continue.
I may not be glad when my times comes… but I think I’ll be pretty relieved.
What could possibly go wrong.
I cannot imagine someone not being VERY sure how to vote in this next American election.
Trump isn't on the ballot, and they won't pay enough attention to their Congress critters to know whether they should keep them. People who don't pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn't be ~~permitted~~ pushed (word change due to an admittedly poor choice of word, but if you read the entirely of what I've written then it's obvious what problem I'm trying to address) to vote, IMHO, because for them it's purely a popularity of the moment contest rather than the choice of who will actually work towards improving their constituents' lives - an utterly absurd basis for determining the future of us all.
People who don't pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn't be permitted to vote, IMHO
Ironically, you'd have to not be paying a certain minimal amount of attention to checks notes middle school US history to not understand how catastrophic this is in practice. Incidentally, that SPLC quiz isn't even nearly the extent of the questions.
I would bar you from voting for this statement alone on the merits of "paying attention".
Yeah, I've heard that before, but it's a single example - it's not an invalid point, but neither is mine. I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven't for fear of repeating that issue.
Too many people just aren't interested in what those running their lives are up to, and yet they're routinely told to go vote if they want to be considered good citizens. So it's become a circus every election cycle. I think those people shouldn't be pushed to vote if they're not interested in understanding what's going on in their capitals, plain and simple. They'll learn the hard way to have an interest.
but it’s a single example
No, it isn't. In fact, the South wasn't even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren't paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.
Even if you ignore that:
- Jim Crow-era literacy tests happened over a period of 75 years. That's not "one example"; that's a bunch of states over the course of nearly a century disenfranchising millions.
- It's so blatantly obvious once you examine that "one example"(TM) why this system fundamentally cannot work and will be abused. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to turn you away from the polling station, because you're clearly unequipped to vote.
Okay, so "not permitted" may not have been the best choice of words. "Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I'm after. You know what I'm saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I'm trying to address.
You haven't provided a single rebuttal against the overall concept that those who aren't following along shouldn't be peer-pressured into voting for something they know little to nothing about. Yet, we do it because the spin-doctors realized those people are so easy to manipulate into voting against their interests, and it's become a part of the American political process ever since.
"Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I'm after. You know what I'm saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I'm trying to address.
No, I actually don't know what you're saying. Because at first, you said "not permitted", then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: "I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven't for fear of repeating that issue." You're still, in that second ("previous") comment, going on about how we can use tests of people's political understanding to bar them from voting if we're just clever about it.
Now you're just claiming it "may have not been the best choice of words", abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.
That's not what "not the best choice of words" means; going from "People who don't pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn't be permitted to vote, IMHO" to "not pushed" and then crying "pedantry" is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I'm actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.
Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness. One poorly chosen word should not have thrown you off what I was after when considering the entirely of what I said. You are blatantly unserious, and just looking to play high & mighty while you still haven't addressed the central problem I've described multiple times.
I'm done with you. Good night.
I've figured it out: this is part of a poll test to see how well I respond to a politician gaslighting me about the things they've said.
Beautiful, well-played. Can I get my ballot now please?
Lemme guess. Blue no matter who?
Ballot language is crafted to be intentionally misleading and political ads are nothing but hyperbole bullshit.
In an ideal world where it still exists it would just give them approved links to the candidates policies and voting history but we all know that's not what's happening.
Is this not what it was designed for?
Not with the monied interests in charge of its operation. They want people to depend upon the big AIs for answers to everything so they can subtly guide the populace's "thinking" and control them like the sheep most of them are.
Yes, that’s what the comment was saying.
Could be interpreted either way, I suppose - it was extremely vague.
I did mean it that way haha
I actually don't hate this concept as long as you verify (don't blindly trust) all the info it gives you.
The reason I say this?
Many local races, especially in "purple" areas can be super ambiguous. Candidates will circulate mailers and ads painting themselves as "pro economy, pro schools, and pro puppy" because they are trying to be vanilla AF and appeal to everyone. Their websites often list a few generic issues and that's it.
AI might actually be useful to summarize major issues, actions, and voting record of the incumbent while collating information about a challenger candidate from other sources.
Local TV tends to be dogshit at their coverage of candidates actual plans and positions but you could also try that, if all else fails. Or maybe find a YouTube video of a debate (if there is one for the office in question) and have the AI give you a bullet point summary.
You're assuming the AI is impartial. After seeing what Musk did to Grok, you should be thoroughly disabused of that notion.
Exactly. None of the cloud-based LLMs are impartial on politics.
Neither are the local ones, unless they're also open weights. But even then, there's a lot more right wing content with reach out there then left wing making the dataset biased from the get go.
or, you know, manipulate the results so that the pro-ai/ceo candidate is shown to be more appealing no matter what the actual situation of the conversation or facts are.
"oh no, sorry I was hallucinating"
Everyone thinks they’ve verified what they were told, I’ve even seen people paste text from whatever website saying it supports their point when really it just has similar keywords. Your brain is very use it or lose it, and when you export research and thinking to AI your ability to do either drops.