>>2570211If you're just using it to get actionable suggestions I don't think that's bad. The issue seems to be that a lot of people, depending how they word their messages to AI, get messages back that are potentially harmful, like confirmation that they are correct when they're likely delusional, and so on. I think what you described is a fine use of it, but requires you being sane enough to tell the difference.
>>2570243Being against Wikipedia as a main research resource was always reasonable, since Wikipedia is unreliable and power-edited. Using laptops and tablets to take notes is also less helpful than using paper to take notes, confirmed by many scientific papers. I know you're trying to describe run-of-the-mill Luddites but there are actual good reasons to be against certain tech things in certain contexts. Idk what Chegg is and idk if it's different than using AI, but.
>Stretch it back a few decades and i'm sure the same anti-AI tumblr group will be against using the internet in general, like I can imagine them raging against using online journals and going on about how they're so much better for using print journals.This was not the case, actually online journals are usually just the online version of print journals. As soon as journals went online, most people supported it, thinking it would make them more easily accessible and save paper. Using AI is absolutely nothing like using research journals for research, since AI is constantly deceptive/wrong and doesn't give you sources, while journal articles (even if wrong) can be properly sourced and attributed to specific people, and corrected if they are discovered to be wrong. Journal articles have actual authors who can be contacted if there are issues with their work, and are actually vetted in some way (even if insufficiently) prior to publication. AI is random word generation more-or-less, and spits out whatever. Using it for 'research' is inherently way more retarded than using actual human-made sources on the internet for research.