"Shut down" your brain!

I didn't know how to answer. Saying "no" wouldn't necessarily convince the questioner. So I chose to leave an angry emoji and then disconnect.

I was genuinely confused by that question. The person asking it was straightforward. But there are so many other readers who aren't as blunt. They have the right to speculate and implicitly judge: "This guy must have asked ChatGPT again."

Actually, it's understandable, because it's not just one or two people asking the "wise man"—the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT—but many. The person who asked me later admitted: "Honestly, I now use AI for everything I write. I use AI for everything I answer. I'm too lazy to think for myself!"

I remember at a meeting, a colleague remarked that subordinates' documents "reeked" of AI. An acquaintance said that at her workplace, even when giving feedback on documents, officials would ask ChatGPT for answers. As a result, the feedback was all very similar, while the practicality and core content that needed improvement were very vague.

That's right, ChatGPT is very smart, but it can't replace human intelligence, especially folk knowledge. People working in a specific environment will have real-world experiences, and naturally, they will offer more insightful feedback, writing more relevant and accurate statements. They may not be flowery, but their intellectual content is usually very high, ensuring textual coherence.

My children also acknowledge that ChatGPT is very useful for their studies. A medical university lecturer exclaimed that he had a hard time removing from students' exams the knowledge provided by ChatGPT that exceeded the institution's allowed limit. This is because some essays almost entirely relied on AI.

If even in a highly rigorous field of study, one that involves the future lives of human beings, someone can easily use information provided by ChatGPT to get good grades, then it's normal for a report or suggestion at some agency to use "robotic" intelligence. Is it only those who diligently "brainstorm" every word, ponder every sentence, and passionately analyze every topic and story... who are considered abnormal?

I disagree with that. I might be conservative and argue that no matter how useful any device may be, it can never replace the brain and the heart. They are completely different from any tool because they possess reason, awareness, and emotion. The heart and brain are conceived, nurtured, educated , and receive love; they are not operated by algorithms.

The ChatGPT outage on the afternoon of June 10th can be considered a "disaster," paralyzing many things. Social media is flooded with complaints, including status updates expressing helplessness. I believe this isn't an exaggeration, but the truth. People who have been "brain-dead" for days, relying on the AI, will lose their bearings when that brain is paralyzed. Their physical brains will also find it difficult to restart and re-establish themselves smoothly after being "neglected" for so long.

The question is: If ChatGPT were to crash again for an even longer period, what would happen to the progress of reports, documents, and essays?

Using tools like ChatGPT is a way of embracing scientific advancements. But relying on artificial intelligence is tantamount to denying our own intelligence. Isn't that truly shameful?

Comment (0)