These sentences needs rewording: As a result of being exposed to AI chatbots, I’ve grown weary of dealing with these “dumb” virtual assistants. My new approach to getting information about an online business or service is to ask an AI chatbot
Hi, Monyka. What I am saying is that as a result of my exposure to “smart” AI chatbots like Claude and Gemini, the “virtual assistants” found on commercial websites seem dumb.
It might be "quicker and easier," but you're accessing the same information and allowing the circumstances for your brain to atrophy in the process. Please stop allowing ai chatbots to think and reason for you.
This was my thought exactly, shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount of generative ai use as much as possible instead of tanking the environment further just to see the same information you would across those websites rephrased??
I like this approach. Instead of simply going to a candidate’s website for information, Claude was helpful on how I connect to a couple of candidates. Claude pointed out how some of my views which we had discussed earlier align with each candidate. Claude also encouraged me to consider how the candidate with whom I aligned might not be effective in office. I’m a retired public school counselor and consider myself politically aware. AI, Claude is a terrific tool.
This is the hard case, because the use is reasonable.
But Gemini did not simply summarize the candidates. It constructed the political space in which they first appeared to you.
It selected salience, attached labels, arranged risk, and left omissions invisible.
That matters especially when the information is treated as “good enough.”
The voter still casts the ballot, but the first structure of judgment has already been supplied by the machine.
The human provides the vote.
The machine provides the field in which the vote begins to make sense.
Structurally, the danger is not so different from trusting a campaign flyer left under your windshield: the problem is not that the information must be false, but that the frame has already been prepared before verification begins.
Good summary from the ai, but I would still be checking the original sites to make sure the info is correct. Quite often the ai summaries have basic errors.
Hi, Keef. Sure, if you have the time and energy. And while you are at it, you can check the accuracy of the original sites as well. Or you can settle for “good enough” information, which might be the case if you are investigating lesser candidates in a local election.
These sentences needs rewording: As a result of being exposed to AI chatbots, I’ve grown weary of dealing with these “dumb” virtual assistants. My new approach to getting information about an online business or service is to ask an AI chatbot
Hi, Monyka. What I am saying is that as a result of my exposure to “smart” AI chatbots like Claude and Gemini, the “virtual assistants” found on commercial websites seem dumb.
It might be "quicker and easier," but you're accessing the same information and allowing the circumstances for your brain to atrophy in the process. Please stop allowing ai chatbots to think and reason for you.
The AI chatbot is simply pulling information from all of those websites you think you’re avoiding
This was my thought exactly, shouldn't we be trying to reduce the amount of generative ai use as much as possible instead of tanking the environment further just to see the same information you would across those websites rephrased??
I like this approach. Instead of simply going to a candidate’s website for information, Claude was helpful on how I connect to a couple of candidates. Claude pointed out how some of my views which we had discussed earlier align with each candidate. Claude also encouraged me to consider how the candidate with whom I aligned might not be effective in office. I’m a retired public school counselor and consider myself politically aware. AI, Claude is a terrific tool.
btw interesting change of title.
The first version described a personal experiment. This one asks the reader to enter a yes/no frame: consult AI before voting, or don’t.
That small shift is not just editorial. It is where the political field begins to arrange itself.
This is the hard case, because the use is reasonable.
But Gemini did not simply summarize the candidates. It constructed the political space in which they first appeared to you.
It selected salience, attached labels, arranged risk, and left omissions invisible.
That matters especially when the information is treated as “good enough.”
The voter still casts the ballot, but the first structure of judgment has already been supplied by the machine.
The human provides the vote.
The machine provides the field in which the vote begins to make sense.
Structurally, the danger is not so different from trusting a campaign flyer left under your windshield: the problem is not that the information must be false, but that the frame has already been prepared before verification begins.
Good summary from the ai, but I would still be checking the original sites to make sure the info is correct. Quite often the ai summaries have basic errors.
Hi, Keef. Sure, if you have the time and energy. And while you are at it, you can check the accuracy of the original sites as well. Or you can settle for “good enough” information, which might be the case if you are investigating lesser candidates in a local election.