222
People who use AI are actual NPCs
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2026
222 points (81.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
44366 readers
871 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I have heard lots of stupid things, and this is in the top ten indeed.
The first stupiditt is that people who use AI,.don't use it all the time. So no not all their respondes are generated.
The second stupidity is that using AI means they use it to generate responses. Maybe they only use it to gather information or automate work tasks.
And the third stupidity is that using AI means you don't also use your brain, thus "no conscience".
Applying the same logic, people who read books are NPCs too because all their responses are generated, no conscience there, just sentences taken from books.
/s just in case (referring to books)
Tell me you've never read a book without telling me. When you read books your brain starts to produce images, scenes and new thought processes depending on what you read. That is not how I would describe copy-pasting AI output
Nobody copy and paste the ai output like op wrote, just to interact with people.
And nobody read ai output for enjoyment either.
Yes the book analogy was wrong, but the point I was making is that OP post is just stupid on so many levels.
I might day that even AI would have done a better job at writing that post.....
As much as it pains me to carry water for AI, do you think that people are replacing things they liked to do with AI?
Like... They were reading for pleasure, and then they had the AI read it for them instead?
That they were talking to their friends they enjoy speaking with, and then they had the AI talk to their friends instead?
Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?
If you use AI instead of reading warning labels, please get the fuck out of whatever job you're doing. You'll save countless lives, first of all your own.
If that's what you thought that I said, then you have no right to judge people on their lack of intelligence or literacy.
Yes, that's what I thought you said, because that's what you said. If you've somehow said something opposite from what you meant, that's on you.
And show me where I said people were using AI to read it.
Because I was describing the class of reading material which is dry and unimaginative, to contrast your description of what reading does to peoples minds.
I was describing two classes of data: the kind that fit what your describe, and therefore people don't actually use AI on it, and dry technical data that doesn't grant the benefits you describe. I did not say if people use AI on the technical material, only that they don't use it with the enjoyable material.
So no, I didn't say that, and if you read it as carefully a you seem to expect everyone else but you too, then you'd have just shut up instead of doubling down embarrassingly.
You've put it in the same list of things people dislike, along with talking to coworkers they don't like. Right after making a point of people using AI for things they don't like to do. Maybe you should ask the AI that generates your comments to try better.
Ah, yeah, if we're playing the game of nitpick: show me where I claimed people were using AI to read warning labels? My first response to you started with "if". At no point did I assert that as a fact or even assumption. But since you took it so personally, I might have hit too close to home?
Them
You
Them
You
Get off your alt account, brother. If you can't be arsed to continue responding from the same account, take a break from the internet and touch some grass.
Okay I think you're off your rocker if you can't conceive of more than one person disagreeing with you in any given time that you assume anyone else is an alt lmao
Oh I'm sure there more than one AI bro in this thread. I just can hardly imagine there being another one as dumb as you.
And you're so bad at arguing that you might actually benefit from AI debating classes.
Considering you're lacking in literacy skills, for the sake of reducing any confusion I specifically meant "your arguing skills are so bad that a bullshit class would actually improve it instead of degrading it, because it can't get any worse". AND I don't condone getting one's education from AI, in case you ever misconstrue what I said.
I can see why you wouldn't condone AI education even with your lack of common sense. Clearly it didn't do yourself any good.
Been there done that, I tried experimenting with SLMs and found that it was bad at simulating a language learning environment without internet. Unfortunately for you, it was for curiosity's sake. I go to a school manned by actual people and I am probably a more diligent and active student than you ever were.
Are you mad at the statement above? Is it wrong and you're going to say I don't know you because you are actually some sort of Ivy League scholar cum laude or whatever? You'll be a hypocrite. Because what are you doing? All you have done is create wrong conclusions, show your blatant lack of self-awareness and think you're above arguing with your own conclusions, and that you're above arguing your actual points with the other party. Don't you ever wonder whether you are actually wrong?
Write why you think the way you do, and you'll be aware of what you're actually thinking.
Don't think I agree with the other guy just because I disagree with you. No, you're just so horrible that I need to point it out to you.
You're acting in bad faith by intentionally misunderstanding them and making it personal.
You're acting in bad faith by intentionally misunderstanding me. But I guess that's to be expected from an AI bro.