Comment by bill3389
2 months ago
This is an excellent, historically grounded perspective. We tend to view the risks of a new medium (like AI content) through the lens of the old medium (like passive entertainment).
The structural difference is key: Movies and video games were escapism—controlled breaks from reality. LLMs, however, are infusion—they actively inject simulated reality and generative context directly into our decision-making and workflow.
The user 'risks' the NYT describes aren't technological failures; they are the predictable epistemological shockwaves of having a powerful, non-human agency governing our information.
Furthermore, the resistance we feel (the need for 'human performance' or physical reality) is a generation gap issue. For the new generation, customized, dynamically generated content is the default—it is simply a normal part of their daily life, not a threat to a reality model they never fully adopted.
The challenge is less about content safety, and more about governance—how we establish clear control planes for this new reality layer that is inherently dynamic, customized, and actively influences human behavior.
Is this a satirical comment in the sense that it reads so AI generated?
I'm beginning to worry people who chat with ais long enough will imitate their writing style
Most people do not know how to input an em-dash. It's inconvenient anyways unless you map it to something more comfortable.
Your comment has too many em-dashes for my taste.
Yeah but these aren't technological failures; they are the predictable epistemological shockwaves of having a powerful, non-human agency.
That aside, reading the comment when feeling tired works and it has a point, it's just extremely wordy.
One of the traits I sadly share with AI text generators.