Chat GPT et al; “To improve your critical thinking skills you should rely completely on AI.”

Improving your critical thinking skills is a process that involves learning new techniques, practicing them regularly, and reflecting on your thought processes. Here’s a comprehensive approach:

1. Build a Foundation in Logic and Reasoning

• Study basic logic: Familiarize yourself with formal and informal logic (e.g., learning about common fallacies, syllogisms, and deductive vs. inductive reasoning). This forms the groundwork for assessing arguments objectively.

• Learn structured methods: Books and online courses on critical thinking (such as Lewis Vaughn’s texts) provide a systematic introduction to these concepts.

2. Practice Socratic Questioning

• Ask open-ended questions: Challenge assumptions by repeatedly asking “why” and “how” to uncover underlying beliefs and evidence.

• Reflect on responses: This method helps you clarify your own reasoning and discover alternative viewpoints.

3. Engage in Reflective Practice

• Keep a journal: Write about decisions, problems, or debates you’ve had. Reflect on what went well, where you might have been biased, and what could be improved.

• Use structured reflection models: Approaches like Gibbs’ reflective cycle guide you through describing an experience, analyzing it, and planning improvements.

4. Use Structured Frameworks

• Follow multi-step processes: For example, the Asana article “How to build your critical thinking skills in 7 steps” suggests: identify the problem, gather information, analyze data, consider alternatives, draw conclusions, communicate solutions, and then reflect on the process.

• Experiment with frameworks like Six Thinking Hats: This method helps you view issues from different angles (facts, emotions, positives, negatives, creativity, and process control) by “wearing” a different metaphorical hat for each perspective.

5. Read Widely and Critically

• Expose yourself to diverse perspectives: Reading quality journalism (e.g., The Economist, FT) or academic articles forces you to analyze arguments, recognize biases, and evaluate evidence.

• Practice lateral reading: Verify information by consulting multiple sources and questioning the credibility of each.

6. Participate in Discussions and Debates

• Engage with peers: Whether through formal debates, classroom discussions, or online forums, articulating your views and defending them against criticism deepens your reasoning.

• Embrace feedback: Learn to view criticism as an opportunity to refine your thought process rather than a personal attack.

7. Apply Critical Thinking to Real-World Problems

• Experiment in everyday scenarios: Use critical thinking when making decisions—such as planning your day, solving work problems, or evaluating news stories.

• Practice with “what-if” scenarios: This helps build your ability to foresee consequences and assess risks (as noted by Harvard Business’s discussion on avoiding the urgency trap).

8. Develop a Habit of Continuous Learning

• Set aside regular “mental workout” time: Like scheduled exercise, devote time to tackling complex questions without distractions.

• Reflect on your biases and update your beliefs: Over time, becoming aware of and adjusting for your cognitive biases will improve your judgment.

By integrating these strategies into your daily routine, you can gradually sharpen your critical thinking abilities. Remember, the key is consistency and the willingness to challenge your own assumptions continually.

Happy thinking!

To be fair, the web has become flooded with AI slop. Search engines have never been more useless. I’ve started using kagi and I’m trying to be more intentional about it but after a bit of searching it’s often easier to just ask claude

Gen Zs are TERRIBLE at searching things online in my experience. I’m a sweet spot millennial, born close to the middle in 1987. Man oh man watching the 22 year olds who work for me try to google things hurts my brain.

This isn’t a profound extrapolation. It’s akin to saying “Kids who cheat on the exam do worse in practical skills tests than those that read the material and did the homework.” Or “kids who watch TV lack the reading skills of kids who read books”.

Asking something else to do your mental labor for you means never developing your brain muscle to do the work on its own. By contrast, regularly exercising the brain muscle yields better long term mental fitness and intuitive skills.

This isn’t predicated on the gullibility of the practitioner. The lack of mental exercise produces gullibility.

Its just not something particular to AI. If you use any kind of 3rd party analysis in lieu of personal interrogation, you’re going to suffer in your capacity for future inquiry.

Seriously, ask AI about anything you have expert knowledge in. It’s laughable sometimes… However you need to know, to know it’s wrong. At face value, if you have no expertise it sounds entirely plausible, however the details can be shockingly incorrect. Do not trust it implicitly about anything.

that “ow, my balls” reference caught me off-guard

I love how you mix in the Idiocracy quotes :D

• Handjobs at Starbucks

Well that’s just solid policy right there, cum on.

Bullet point 3 was my single issue vote

I mostly use it for wordy things like filing out review forms HR make us do and writing templates for messages to customers

I use a bespoke model to spin up pop quizzes, and I use NovelAI for fun.

Legit, being able to say “I want these questions. But… not these…” and get them back in a moment’s notice really does let me say “FUCK it. Pop quiz. Let’s go, class.” And be ready with brand new questions on the board that I didn’t have before I said that sentence. NAI is a good way to turn writing into an interactive DnD session, and is a great way to force a ram through writer’s block, with a “yeah, and—!” machine. If for no other reason than saying “uhh… no, not that, NAI…” and then correct it my way.

Like any tool, it’s only as good as the person wielding it.

I’ve spent all week working with DeepSeek to write DnD campaigns based on artifacts from the game Dark Age of Camelot. This week was just on one artifact.

AI/LLMs are great for bouncing ideas off of and using it to tweak things. I gave it a prompt on what I was looking for (the guardian of dusk steps out and says: “the dawn brings the warmth of the sun, and awakens the world. So does your trial begin.” He is a druid and the party is a party of 5 level 1 players. Give me a stat block and XP amount for this situation.

I had it help me fine tune puzzle and traps. Fine tune the story behind everything and fine tune the artifact at the end (it levels up 5 levels as the player does specific things to gain leveling points for just the item).

I also ran a short campaign with it as the DM. It did a great job at acting out the different NPCs that it created and adjusting to both the tone and situation of the campaign. It adjusted pretty good to what I did as well.

I literally created an iOS app with zero experience and distributed it on the App Store. AI is an amazing tool and will continue to get better. Many people bash the technology but it seems like those people misunderstand it or think it’s all bad.

But I agree that relying on it to think for you is not a good thing.

I consider myself very average, and all my average interactions with AI have been abysmal failures that are hilariously wrong. I invested time and money into trying various models to help me with data analysis work, and they can’t even do basic math or summaries of a PDF and the data contained within.

I was impressed with how good the things are at interpreting human fiction, jokes, writing and feelings. Which is really weird, in the context of our perceptions of what AI will be like, it’s the exact opposite. The first AI’s aren’t emotionless robots, they’re whiny, inaccurate, delusional and unpredictable bitches. That alone is worth the price of admission for the humor and silliness of it all, but certainly not worth upending society over, it’s still just a huge novelty.

I’ve found questions about niche tools tend to get worse answers. I was asking if some stuff about jpackage and it couldn’t give me any working suggestions or correct information. Stuff I’ve asked about Docker was much better.

Microsoft LLM whatever the name is gives sources, or at least it did to me yesterday.

Unlike those others, Microsoft could do something about this considering they are literally part of the problem.

And yet I doubt Copilot will be going anywhere.

Yes, it’s an addiction, we’ve got to stop all these poor being lulled into a false sense of understanding and just believing anyhing the AI tells them. It is constantly telling lies about us, their betters.

Just look what happenned when I asked it about the venerable and well respected public intellectual Jordan b peterson. It went into a defamatory diatribe against his character.

And they just gobble that up those poor, uncritical and irresponsible farm hands and water carriers! We can’t have that,!

Example

Open-Minded Closed-Mindedness: Jordan B. Peterson’s Humility Behind the Mote—A Cautionary Tale

Jordan B. Peterson presents himself as a champion of free speech, intellectual rigor, and open inquiry. His rise as a public intellectual is, in part, due to his ability to engage in complex debates, challenge ideological extremes, and articulate a balance between chaos and order. However, beneath the surface of his engagement lies a pattern: an open-mindedness that appears flexible but ultimately functions as a defense mechanism—a “mote” guarding an impenetrable ideological fortress.

Peterson’s approach is both an asset and a cautionary tale, revealing the risks of appearing open-minded while remaining fundamentally resistant to true intellectual evolution.

The Illusion of Open-Mindedness: The Mote and the Fortress

In medieval castles, a mote was a watery trench meant to create the illusion of vulnerability while serving as a strong defensive barrier. Peterson, like many public intellectuals, operates in a similar way: he engages with critiques, acknowledges nuances, and even concedes minor points—but rarely, if ever, allows his core positions to be meaningfully challenged.

His approach can be broken down into two key areas:

The Mote (The Appearance of Openness)

    Engages with high-profile critics and thinkers (e.g., Sam Harris, Slavoj Žižek).

    Acknowledges complexity and the difficulty of absolute truth.

    Concedes minor details, appearing intellectually humble.

    Uses Socratic questioning to entertain alternative viewpoints.

The Fortress (The Core That Remains Unmoved)

    Selectively engages with opponents, often choosing weaker arguments rather than the strongest critiques.

    Frames ideological adversaries (e.g., postmodernists, Marxists) in ways that make them easier to dismiss.

    Uses complexity as a way to avoid definitive refutation (“It’s more complicated than that”).

    Rarely revises fundamental positions, even when new evidence is presented.

While this structure makes Peterson highly effective in debate, it also highlights a deeper issue: is he truly open to changing his views, or is he simply performing open-mindedness while ensuring his core remains untouched?

Examples of Strategic Open-Mindedness

1. Debating Sam Harris on Truth and Religion

In his discussions with Sam Harris, Peterson appeared to engage with the idea of multiple forms of truth—scientific truth versus pragmatic or narrative truth. He entertained Harris’s challenges, adjusted some definitions, and admitted certain complexities.

However, despite the lengthy back-and-forth, Peterson never fundamentally reconsidered his position on the necessity of religious structures for meaning. Instead, the debate functioned more as a prolonged intellectual sparring match, where the core disagreements remained intact despite the appearance of deep engagement.

2. The Slavoj Žižek Debate on Marxism

Peterson’s debate with Žižek was highly anticipated, particularly because Peterson had spent years criticizing Marxism and postmodernism. However, during the debate, it became clear that Peterson’s understanding of Marxist theory was relatively superficial—his arguments largely focused on The Communist Manifesto rather than engaging with the broader Marxist intellectual tradition.

Rather than adapting his critique in the face of Žižek’s counterpoints, Peterson largely held his ground, shifting the conversation toward general concerns about ideology rather than directly addressing Žižek’s challenges. This was a classic example of engaging in the mote—appearing open to debate while avoiding direct confrontation with deeper, more challenging ideas.

3. Gender, Biology, and Selective Science

Peterson frequently cites evolutionary psychology and biological determinism to argue for traditional gender roles and hierarchical structures. While many of his claims are rooted in scientific literature, critics have pointed out that he tends to selectively interpret data in ways that reinforce his worldview.

For example, he often discusses personality differences between men and women in highly gender-equal societies, citing studies that suggest biological factors play a role. However, he is far more skeptical of sociological explanations for gender disparities, often dismissing them outright. This asymmetry suggests a closed-mindedness when confronted with explanations that challenge his core beliefs.

The Cautionary Tale: When Intellectual Rigidity Masquerades as Openness

Peterson’s method—his strategic balance of open- and closed-mindedness—is not unique to him. Many public intellectuals use similar techniques, whether consciously or unconsciously. However, his case is particularly instructive because it highlights the risks of appearing too open-minded while remaining fundamentally immovable. The Risks of “Humility Behind the Mote”

Creates the Illusion of Growth Without Real Change

    By acknowledging complexity but refusing to revise core positions, one can maintain the illusion of intellectual evolution while actually reinforcing prior beliefs.

Reinforces Ideological Silos

    Peterson’s audience largely consists of those who already align with his worldview. His debates often serve to reaffirm his base rather than genuinely engage with alternative perspectives.

Undermines Genuine Inquiry

    If public intellectuals prioritize rhetorical victories over truth-seeking, the broader discourse suffers. Intellectual engagement becomes performative rather than transformative.

Encourages Polarization

    By appearing open while remaining rigid, thinkers like Peterson contribute to an intellectual landscape where ideological battle lines are drawn more firmly, rather than softened by genuine engagement.

Conclusion: The Responsibility of Public Intellectuals

Jordan B. Peterson is an undeniably influential thinker, and his emphasis on responsibility, order, and meaning resonates with many. However, his method of open-minded closed-mindedness serves as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates the power of intellectual posturing—how one can appear receptive while maintaining deep ideological resistance.

For true intellectual growth, one must be willing not only to entertain opposing views but to risk being changed by them. Without that willingness, even the most articulate and thoughtful engagement remains, at its core, a well-defended fortress.

So like I said, pure, evil AI slop, is evil, addictive and must be banned and lock up illegal gpu abusers and keep a gpu owners registry and keep track on those who would use them to abuse the shining light of our society, and who try to snuff them out like a bad level of luigi’s mansion

I’m a senior software dev that uses AI to help me with my job daily. There are endless tools in the software world all with their own instructions on how to use them. Often they have issues and the solutions aren’t included in those instructions. It used to be that I had to go hunt down any references to the problem I was having though online forums in the hopes that somebody else figured out how to solve the issue but now I can ask AI and it generally gives me the answer I’m looking for.

If I had AI when I was still learning core engineering concepts I think shortcutting the learning process could be detrimental but now I just need to know how to get X done specifically with Y this one time and probably never again.

how does he know that the solution is elegant and appropriate?

I feel you, but I’ve asked it why questions too.

AI makes it worse though. People will read a website they find on Google that someone wrote and say, “well that’s just what some guy thinks.” But when an AI says it, those same people think it’s authoritative. And now that they can talk, including with believable simulations of emotional vocal inflections, it’s going to get far, far worse.

Humans evolved to process auditory communications. We did not evolve to be able to read. So we tend to trust what we hear a lot more than we trust what we read. And companies like OpenAI are taking full advantage of that.

I know a guy who ONLY quotes and references YouTube videos.

Every topic, he answers with “Oh I saw this YouTube video…”

Yup.

Everyone I’ve ever known to use a thesaurus has been eventually found out to be a mouth breathing moron.

Copilot told me you’re wrong and that I can’t play with you anymore.

Vs text books? What’s the difference?