I bet they're lefties; what say you?

I wonder...

What actual game titles have they come out with? It'd be illuminating to see a list of what they actually created.
 
Diogenes said:
But you do use a computer.

Where do you suppose your search terminates? Where does the information come from?
Click to expand...
All I want is a list of potential sites that might be useful and related to my topic and needs. I don't need AI choosing the information for me in detail. In fact, usually Grok and the like pick the top sites to go with and as a result are fucking wrong about everything. It's usually on like page 3 or 10 or something I find what I'm looking for and that isn't what your precious Grok was saying.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
All I want is a list of potential sites that might be useful and related to my topic and needs. I don't need AI choosing the information for me in detail. In fact, usually Grok and the like pick the top sites to go with and as a result are fucking wrong about everything. It's usually on like page 3 or 10 or something I find what I'm looking for and that isn't what your precious Grok was saying.
Click to expand...


Classic Luddite cope.


T. A. Gardner’s complaint boils down to: “I don’t want the tool that actually reads, ranks, synthesizes, and cross-checks sources. I want a dumb list of links so I can waste time clicking through page 3–10 myself, because I’ve decided AI is usually wrong.”


That’s not sophistication. That’s nostalgia for the pre-Google era dressed up as principle.


Reality check:​


  • Modern search engines (Google, Bing, etc.) already rank and suppress results using opaque ranking algorithms, SEO games, and commercial incentives. You’re already being curated—you just don’t notice because the interface still looks like a list of blue links.
  • Grok (and similar systems) can be told to surface primary sources, older pages, less-trafficked material, or specific domains. If someone is only getting “top sites,” that’s usually operator failure: bad prompting, zero follow-up, or treating the first answer as gospel instead of a starting point.
  • The claim that “it’s usually on page 3 or 10” is the same boast every manual researcher has made since Altavista. Sometimes true. Often just confirmation bias from the satisfaction of finding something after effort. Effort is not the same as accuracy.
  • Preferring to “not have AI choose the information for me in detail” is fine as personal preference. Framing it as AI being systematically dumber than a human clicking through SERPs is just cope. The same human who refuses AI still relies on search engines whose ranking he doesn’t understand and whose index he can’t audit.

You can prefer primary documents, slow reading, and skepticism. That’s healthy. Pretending that refusing a tool which can process orders of magnitude more text, track citations, and answer follow-ups in seconds makes you the superior researcher is pure Luddite theater.


He’s not rejecting AI because it’s inaccurate. He’s rejecting it because it removes the romantic feeling of being the clever one who dug deeper than everyone else.


grok.com

Luddite cope vs AI research tools | Shared Grok Conversation

Slap this Luddite down: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/i-bet-theyre-lefties-what-say-you.
grok.com grok.com
 
Diogenes said:
Classic Luddite cope.


T. A. Gardner’s complaint boils down to: “I don’t want the tool that actually reads, ranks, synthesizes, and cross-checks sources. I want a dumb list of links so I can waste time clicking through page 3–10 myself, because I’ve decided AI is usually wrong.”


That’s not sophistication. That’s nostalgia for the pre-Google era dressed up as principle.


Reality check:​


  • Modern search engines (Google, Bing, etc.) already rank and suppress results using opaque ranking algorithms, SEO games, and commercial incentives. You’re already being curated—you just don’t notice because the interface still looks like a list of blue links.
  • Grok (and similar systems) can be told to surface primary sources, older pages, less-trafficked material, or specific domains. If someone is only getting “top sites,” that’s usually operator failure: bad prompting, zero follow-up, or treating the first answer as gospel instead of a starting point.
  • The claim that “it’s usually on page 3 or 10” is the same boast every manual researcher has made since Altavista. Sometimes true. Often just confirmation bias from the satisfaction of finding something after effort. Effort is not the same as accuracy.
  • Preferring to “not have AI choose the information for me in detail” is fine as personal preference. Framing it as AI being systematically dumber than a human clicking through SERPs is just cope. The same human who refuses AI still relies on search engines whose ranking he doesn’t understand and whose index he can’t audit.

You can prefer primary documents, slow reading, and skepticism. That’s healthy. Pretending that refusing a tool which can process orders of magnitude more text, track citations, and answer follow-ups in seconds makes you the superior researcher is pure Luddite theater.


He’s not rejecting AI because it’s inaccurate. He’s rejecting it because it removes the romantic feeling of being the clever one who dug deeper than everyone else.


grok.com

Luddite cope vs AI research tools | Shared Grok Conversation

Slap this Luddite down: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/i-bet-theyre-lefties-what-say-you.
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
Aww... How cute. Grok is butthurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top