Possible effects on cognitive function of using AI.

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,754
Location
Austria
I do not buy this environmental talk, there is too much hypocrisy behind the agenda.

Hypocrisy only starts if also conceit and paternalism sets in. In a certain way, normal disturbing emotions, actually easy to get rid of.

But in a certain way, you are right, that I don't even fear carbon tons, but something else Since my travel I actually love tropical climates, I almost never used ventilators there. Love sweating too much, but hate AC. Even where there are still glaciers in the alps now, there were birch trees growing 7 thousands years ago only. I can't help but see, that hotter climate was exactly the time many human civilizations took off. Many of those gone again.

However, carbon tons are also an equivalent for resources depletion, poisoning earth, water, air and all living things around, including ourselves. And our own children. There, for me only, without preaching or paternalizing, hypocrisies ends. It is a fact, we don't leave anything to survive with dignity to our own children.

Let it sink in, if one is able too, and hypocrisies ceases. Also, such notions that atomic waste, the most toxic of all wastes at such amounts, with no workable solution since its inauguration 70 years ago, would help to reduce carbon, is only a delusion to create even further profits and wastes. Same as electrification of mobility, which would use too much toxic mining, our earth couldn't remedy anymore. We are at, and are witnessing the fall down of our own civilization. And nothing one does to reduce the toxic waste of modern living, can stop that on the societal level. If we understand, are in the position to, and wish, we still can reduce toxic waste on the individual level. Without hypocrisy.

Therefore, even without hypocrisy or paternalism, one still doesn't have to buy it. But live with it.

To keep us in our homes and limit everything, our heating, our lighting, the amount of clothes we buy and meat we eat, cars we use and where we travel. Making us cold, stuck in one location and sick from nutrition deprived food is not the way to save the planet or ourselves.

Then don't. I had the repeated lucky and uncommon experience on my world travel, that whenever running out of money, I saw the best humans are able to. And a gladness, which makes any convenience in comparison fade. Therefore in my unique case, minimal heating and lightning, the least cloths or machines, actually does give me deeper satisfaction, than otherwise. But without such experience, and only has the never ending promising advertisements, than simply don't.

Because I do not see any initiative from people in power to stop that,

I see it more through the lens of developmental psychology. In the early days of humanity we depended as groups on strong leaders, being able to provide security from wild animals, other groups, and sustenance. The people in power always and to this day to a certain extent get their standing through each of us.

Limiting everything we do is not a solution. Limiting AI is what we should do instead and then work on environment friendly technologies first.

The difference right now is, that power gets unshakable with the profiling and immediate elimination through AI (as in the examples of Gaza, or the US border control).

Limiting AI is as impossible as limiting environmental pollution on the societal level. Individually, one still can. But also here without paternalizing. It will bring results on the individual level. On the societal level, this civilization is toast.

As all past and gone Civilizations shows us, small surviving groups of people always started new Civilizations. Somehow, I'm pretty certain, it will be without AI again.
 
Last edited:

Viala

Senior Member
Messages
786
I had the repeated lucky and uncommon experience on my world travel, that whenever running out of money, I saw the best humans are able to. And a gladness, which makes any convenience in comparison fade. Therefore in my unique case, minimal heating and lightning, the least cloths or machines, actually does give me deeper satisfaction, than otherwise. But without such experience, and only has the never ending promising advertisements, than simply don't.

Realistic results for most people will be like this. No proper heating is more diseases, including ME/CFS and anything fungal or mold related. No meat or animal protein in our diet is more diseases and unhealthy reliance on storebought supplements. No ability to travel too far is being stuck in a deadend job. These ideas may sound fun but not to families with children. They may sound fun when we have a choice and can travel to countries with warmer climates. Minimalistic lifestyle fashion, which is just a clever poverty ad, will end up with minimalistic population. Or anarchy. There is nothing spiritual in poverty and suffering. It's all about balance.

I give a yes to green technology and environment protection, but it has to be done wisely. Without making us poor, sick or stuck without any options. It's not that the idea is wrong, but it's implementation and intention behind it.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,754
Location
Austria
I repeated often enough: ..then don't.

Then don't save on heating, then don't dismiss animal food, then do travel. I had to add at least some animal food and travel, exactly because of my health situation. I repeatedly made it clear, this is an individual choice only when possible, AND wished for. Not applicable to anyone without those needed preconditions. Without absolutely no better outcome on the poisoning of our life-support of planet earth on the societal level.

I said, with no responsibilities, like with responsibility for family and minors. Then don't.

A clever poverty ad, in the presented context, is your projection only. I feel completely not guilty for. Unless when my most personal choices in this tire situation are downplayed as 'clever ad' now. Which they aren't, because: ,,then don't.

which is just a clever poverty ad,. will end up with minimalistic population. Or anarchy. There is nothing spiritual in poverty and suffering.

Didn't we just agree, that conceit, patronizing and moralizing is a disturbing emotion only, completely off any mark whatsoever? - In this case, with a completely unrealistic prediction from a cause - self-chosen poverty - not existing anywhere in society?

The unavoidable end of our civilization and its minimalistic survival potential, its anarchy and suffering I actually put much thought in, how to be able to cope with. But conclude too, I wont be able too.

Whatever we do on an individual level, the outcome is set for future generations. And it is not the least caused by a not existing self-chosen poverty.
 

Viala

Senior Member
Messages
786
Didn't we just agree, that conceit, patronizing and moralizing is a disturbing emotion only, completely off any mark whatsoever? - In this case, with a completely unrealistic prediction from a cause - self-chosen poverty - not existing anywhere in society?

I also don't like insect agenda and that people lose their jobs for talking about biological facts. Some things just go too far, yes? I like good music though. I hope it will last. No AI will beat true genius in this department.
 

Rufous McKinney

Senior Member
Messages
14,450
I rather like the short video above. It's obviously AI. So it's "just an illustration".

Did anyone happen to notice the tennis shoes? The lady is wearing them, but then she is NOT wearing them and the dog is" standing on the shoes". Then, she's wearing them again. Odd detail.

My other "comment".. imagine it, strolling along the scenic path with your cute dog, carrying your entire picnic, picnic basket, food, beverages, rolled up blankets, even the book you'll be enjoying dipping into.

My field trips: I"ve had to forgo any purse. Because a short outing, the purse itself will cause me neck/spine/shoulder misery. It doesn't take very long, a a few minutes of "just my purse"....
 

Viala

Senior Member
Messages
786
There's no doubt about it that it can be awesome and it's a matter of time when such videos will look very natural, including the one that would imitate real movies.

Maybe soon it will be very easy to create movies, graphics or music straight out of our imagination with high precision and we will have musical and cinematic revolution, same as we had with youtube content that competes now with regular tv. Although I will always respect more real raw talent and people actually learning playing music in real life, getting on a real stage and acting, writing a whole book from scratch etc. It is also possible that soon some people will get tired of digital everything and will start to enjoy things more like it was before, that would be a nice trend.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,754
Location
Austria

Inside a plan to use AI to amplify doubts about the dangers of pollutants

Risk analyst Tony Cox’s work has been backed by the chemical lobby, and some health experts are alarmed

Dharna Noor
Fri 27 Jun 2025 16.00 CEST

An industry-backed researcher who has forged a career sowing doubt about the dangers of pollutants is attempting to use artificial intelligence (AI) to amplify his perspective.

Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr, a Denver-based risk analyst and former Trump adviser who once reportedly claimed there is no proof that cleaning air saves lives, is developing an AI application to scan academic research for what he sees as the false conflation of correlation with causation.

Cox has described the project as an attempt to weed “propaganda” out of epidemiological research and perform “critical thinking at scale” in emails to industry researchers, which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by the Energy and Policy Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, and exclusively reviewed by the Guardian.

He has long leveled accusations of flimsiness at research linking exposure to chemical compounds with health dangers, including on behalf of polluting interests such as cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA and the American Petroleum Institute – a fossil fuel lobbying group he has even allowed to “copy edit” his findings. (Cox says the edit “amounted to suggesting a small change” and noted that he has also obtained public research funding.)


rest at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2025/jun/27/tony-cox-epidemiology-risk-assessment-chatgpt-ai

Combine that with the effects of lead exposure (just one study of many):

Environmental lead exposure and its correlation with intelligence quotient level in children

 
Last edited:

southwestforests

Senior Member
Messages
1,355
Location
Missouri
Hmm, the following bit from that brings something to mind ...

Cox has described the project as an attempt to weed “propaganda” out of epidemiological research and perform “critical thinking at scale” in emails to industry researchers, which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests by the Energy and Policy Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, and exclusively reviewed by the Guardian.

He has long leveled accusations of flimsiness at research linking exposure to chemical compounds with health dangers,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1247618/

Environ Health Perspect
. 2004 Aug 5;112(15):1539–1543. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7195
Lung Cancer in Railroad Workers Exposed to Diesel Exhaust

➡️
The details in there sure look like sound science to me.
 
Messages
57
AI isn’t smart enough yet to be able to replace critical thinking. It has to be heavily supervised. In my experience, when it doesn’t know something, it just makes it up. If you tell it it’s wrong, it will often admit that it was wrong, even if it was in fact right. If you tell it to admit ignorance rather than hallucinating, it will agree to do so but then never actually do it.

I mostly use it for summarizing my own rambles as well as condensing complicated nuanced questions into searchable terms. I don’t take anything it says as truth, but rather, potential research topics.

It’s all in how you use it
 

kushami

Senior Member
Messages
743
AI isn’t smart enough yet to be able to replace critical thinking. It has to be heavily supervised. In my experience, when it doesn’t know something, it just makes it up.

I've found the same thing. I have been using Perplexity to continue to research a topic that I already learned about myself (by reading lots of research articles and patient forums) and it will often make statements that have no basis in the research. When I challenge it to provide a reference, it blithely admits it made it up. If I had not researched the topic the hard way, I wouldn't spot this.

It also relies (exclusively?) on secondary sources unless you tell it to look at primary ones, and secondary sources are often oversimplified or just plain wrong. Surely it should be programmed to look at both. Oh well.

At this point, I am only finding it useful for calorie counting.
 
Back