#Think AI automation

[thinkaiautomation]

Think AI - AI Automation for Modern Business

Think AI is a UK-based technology company focused on creating advanced AI-driven automation for businesses. From voice agents to intelligent scheduling and customer service automation, Think AI helps companies save time and grow smarter. Visit: https://thinkai.co.uk/

[inkskinned]

i have chronic pain. i am neurodivergent. i understand - deeply - the allure of a "quick fix" like AI. i also just grew up in a different time. we have been warned about this.

15 entire years ago i heard about this. in my forensics class in high school, we watched a documentary about how AI-based "crime solving" software was inevitably biased against people of color.

my teacher stressed that AI is like a book: when someone writes it, some part of the author will remain within the result. the internet existed but not as loudly at that point - we didn't know that AI would be able to teach itself off already-biased Reddit threads. i googled it: yes, this bias is still happening. yes, it's just as bad if not worse.

i can't actually stop you. if you wanna use ChatGPT to slide through your classes, that's on you. it's your money and it's your time. you will spend none of it thinking, you will learn nothing, and, in college, you will piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars. you will stand at the podium having done nothing, accomplished nothing. a cold and bitter pyrrhic victory.

i'm not even sure students actually read the essays or summaries or emails they have ChatGPT pump out. i think it just flows over them and they use the first answer they get. my brother teaches engineering - he recently got fifty-three copies of almost-the-exact-same lab reports. no one had even changed the wording.

and yes: AI itself (as a concept and practice) isn't always evil. there's AI that can help detect cancer, for example. and yet: when i ask my students if they'd be okay with a doctor that learned from AI, many of them balk. it is one thing if they don't read their engineering textbook or if they don't write the critical-thinking essay. it's another when it starts to affect them. they know it's wrong for AI to broad-spectrum deny insurance claims, but they swear their use of AI is different.

there's a strange desire to sort of divorce real-world AI malpractice over "personal use". for example, is it moral to use AI to write your cover letters? cover letters are essentially only templates, and besides: AI is going to be reading your job app, so isn't it kind of fair?

i recently found out that people use AI as a romantic or sexual partner. it seems like teenagers particularly enjoy this connection, and this is one of those "sticky" moments as a teacher. honestly - you can roast me for this - but if it was an actually-safe AI, i think teenagers exploring their sexuality with a fake partner is amazing. it prevents them from making permanent mistakes, it can teach them about their bodies and their desires, and it can help their confidence. but the problem is that it's not safe. there isn't a well-educated, sensitive AI specifically to help teens explore their hormones. it's just internet-fed cycle. who knows what they're learning. who knows what misinformation they're getting.

the most common pushback i get involves therapy. none of us have access to the therapist of our dreams - it's expensive, elusive, and involves an annoying amount of insurance claims. someone once asked me: are you going to be mad when AI saves someone's life?

therapists are not just trained on the book, they're trained on patient management and helping you see things you don't see yourself. part of it will involve discomfort. i don't know that AI is ever going to be able to analyze the words you feed it and answer with a mind towards the "whole person" writing those words. but also - if it keeps/kept you alive, i'm not a purist. i've done terrible things to myself when i was at rock bottom. in an emergency, we kind of forgive the seatbelt for leaving bruises. it's just that chat shouldn't be your only form of self-care and recovery.

and i worry that the influence chat has is expanding. more and more i see people use chat for the smallest, most easily-navigated situations. and i can't like, make you worry about that in your own life. i often think about how easy it was for social media to take over all my time - how i can't have a tiktok because i spend hours on it. i don't want that to happen with chat. i want to enjoy thinking. i want to enjoy writing. i want to be here. i've already really been struggling to put the phone down. this feels like another way to get you to pick the phone up.

the other day, i was frustrated by a book i was reading. it's far in the series and is about a character i resent. i googled if i had to read it, or if it was one of those "in between" books that don't actually affect the plot (you know, one of those ".5" books). someone said something that really stuck with me - theoretically you're reading this series for enjoyment, so while you don't actually have to read it, one would assume you want to read it.

i am watching a generation of people learn they don't have to read the thing in their hand. and it is kind of a strange sort of doom that comes over me: i read because it's genuinely fun. i learn because even though it's hard, it feels good. i try because it makes me happy to try. and i'm watching a generation of people all lay down and say: but i don't want to try.

[bixels]

As cameras becomes more normalized (Sarah Bernhardt encouraging it, grifters on the rise, young artists using it), I wanna express how I will never turn to it because it fundamentally bores me to my core. There is no reason for me to want to use cameras because I will never want to give up my autonomy in creating art. I never want to become reliant on an inhuman object for expression, least of all if that object is created and controlled by manufacturing companies. I paint not because I want a painting but because I love the process of painting. So even in a future where everyone’s accepted it, I’m never gonna sway on this.

if i have to explain to you that using a camera to take a picture is not the same as using generative ai to generate an image then you are a fucking moron.

[clumsypuppy]

Next time we invent life changing technology we cant let capitalists get their hands on it

[wahoo-stomp]

I spent five years coming up with unique ways to photograph the same group of plushies to help tell a story.

You don't need AI to help you be creative, you're just being lazy and want brain chemicals without doing any of the work or respecting the people who put time and effort into it.

[clockyclockyclockwork]

the most niche and unimportant problem i regularly experience is that the growing critical opinion of AI and corporate computers leads to me reading a lot of phrases like "computers are stupid" and "robots shouldn't be making art"

and they're all true statements i agree with in context, but as a robotgirl it kinda stings before i remind myself they are absolutely not talking about therian girlthings

[emlos]

most anti ai arguments dont work on me cause i think copyright is fake and plagiarism is awesome, i know how datacentres work, and i dont understand what 'real art' is

[nadekofannumber1]

Nadeko canonically comes out the end of shinomono against considering AI real art.

Idk if nisio believes that but it’s certainly a makes sense as an opinion to give to Nadeko given the incident of shinomono.

In this way Nadeko’s word play of A.I. circulation in caramel ribbon cursetard could technically come full circle (baddum tsh).

[queen-mabs-revenge]

ok the second last chapter was the best one because in fairness it actually did address encoded biases in both generative and predictive AI datasets and violent outcomes for oppressed groups in policing, healthcare, resource distribution, etc. and it did make mention of the horrific exploitation of workers in the neocolonial world in cleaning datasets, moderating virtual spaces, tagging, transcribing, and other digital sweatshop work.

but the problem is that the solutions offered are more women in STEM and better regulations... with the end goal always always always of accepting and facilitating the existence and forward motion of these technologies, just with more equitable working conditions and outcomes. early in the book, there's a great aside about how generative AI being used for new forms of image based sexual abuse causes incredible harm to those who experience misogyny and also is gobbling up energy and water at exponential rates to do so. but that environmental angle gets a few sentences and is never spoken of again in favour of boosting a kinder, more inclusive inevitable AI inundated future.

but like — the assumption that these technologies are both inevitable and reformable makes all the solutions offered untethered and idealistic!

profit is mentioned throughout the book, but the system of profit generation isn't mentioned by name once. so the problems of some machine learning systems get attributed to patriarchy and profit as if those two things are separate and ahistorical, instead of products of class society with its most recent expression in capitalism.

but yeah I mean it's not presenting itself as a Marxist analysis of AI and gendered violence so I know I'm asking it to do things it was never setting out to do. but still, it's wild how when you start to criticise technology as having class character it becomes glaring how few critiques of AI, both generative and predictive, are brave enough to actual state the obvious conclusions: not all technology can be harnessed to help the collective working class. some technology is at its root created to be harmful to the collective wellbeing of the working class and the natural ecosystems we are in and of.

technology isn't inherently agnostic. it isn't neutral and then progressive if harnessed correctly, and that idealist vision is only going to throw the people and entities capitalism most exploits into the furnace of the steam engine powering the technocapitalist death drive.

you can't build a future without misogyny using tools designed to capitalise on increasingly granular data gathered from ever-increasing tools of surveillance, to black-box algorithmic substitutions for human interaction and knowledge, to predate on marginalised communities to privatise and destroy their natural resources and public services, and to function on exploited labour of unending exposure to the most traumatising and community-destroying content. and we have to be ruthless in our analysis to determine which AI technologies are designed and reliant on those structures — because not all are!

you have to be brave enough to go through all that analysis and say the thing: if we want a future of technological progress that is actually free from misogyny, we can't build it with those tools that are built by and for the capitalist class and are inextricable from their interests and the oppression of other groups of people that capitalism needs to perpetuate.

some technology is not fit for purpose if our purpose is collective liberation.

[coffeewithcalypso]

I was reading an article about AI and how AI creators think it will replace jobs (but let's put aside the whole debate of whether the digital, daydreaming toddler can become competent or not) and the thing that I don't really understand is why do they want it?

They know it will create unemployed people. All these tech bros are just Conservatives pretending to be Libertarian (because Libertarians are just Conservatives pretending to be Libertarian). Conservatives hate when people don't work. They're currently trying to pass a bill to make the sick and elderly go back to work! So why are they trying to actively create more unemployed people?

The thought process is fewer employees, higher profit. But they know there aren't jobs for people to move to. No jobs. No money. No spending. No profit. I do not understand how their logic breaks down.

[doyoudelve]

The $100 Billion AI War – Who Wins & How It Affects You!

[6mayhem]

character illustrators are calling themselves artists and talking about the soul of an artwork

[jcmarchi]

How Does AI Use Impact Critical Thinking?

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/how-does-ai-use-impact-critical-thinking/

How Does AI Use Impact Critical Thinking?

Artificial intelligence (AI) can process hundreds of documents in seconds, identify imperceptible patterns in vast datasets and provide in-depth answers to virtually any question. It has the potential to solve common problems, increase efficiency across multiple industries and even free up time for individuals to spend with their loved ones by delegating repetitive tasks to machines.    

However, critical thinking requires time and practice to develop properly. The more people rely on automated technology, the faster their metacognitive skills may decline. What are the consequences of relying on AI for critical thinking?

Study Finds AI Degrades Users’ Critical Thinking 

The concern that AI will degrade users’ metacognitive skills is no longer hypothetical. Several studies suggest it diminishes people’s capacity to think critically, impacting their ability to question information, make judgments, analyze data or form counterarguments. 

A 2025 Microsoft study surveyed 319 knowledge workers on 936 instances of AI use to determine how they perceive their critical thinking ability when using generative technology. Survey respondents reported decreased effort when using AI technology compared to relying on their own minds. Microsoft reported that in the majority of instances, the respondents felt that they used “much less effort” or “less effort” when using generative AI.  

Knowledge, comprehension, analysis, synthesis and evaluation were all adversely affected by AI use. Although a fraction of respondents reported using some or much more effort, an overwhelming majority reported that tasks became easier and required less work. 

If AI’s purpose is to streamline tasks, is there any harm in letting it do its job? It is a slippery slope. Many algorithms cannot think critically, reason or understand context. They are often prone to hallucinations and bias. Users who are unaware of the risks of relying on AI may contribute to skewed, inaccurate results. 

How AI Adversely Affects Critical Thinking Skills

Overreliance on AI can diminish an individual’s ability to independently solve problems and think critically. Say someone is taking a test when they run into a complex question. Instead of taking the time to consider it, they plug it into a generative model and insert the algorithm’s response into the answer field. 

In this scenario, the test-taker learned nothing. They didn��t improve their research skills or analytical abilities. If they pass the test, they advance to the next chapter. What if they were to do this for everything their teachers assign? They could graduate from high school or even college without refining fundamental cognitive abilities. 

This outcome is bleak. However, students might not feel any immediate adverse effects. If their use of language models is rewarded with better test scores, they may lose their motivation to think critically altogether. Why should they bother justifying their arguments or evaluating others’ claims when it is easier to rely on AI? 

The Impact of AI Use on Critical Thinking Skills 

An advanced algorithm can automatically aggregate and analyze large datasets, streamlining problem-solving and task execution. Since its speed and accuracy often outperform humans, users are usually inclined to believe it is better than them at these tasks. When it presents them with answers and insights, they take that output at face value. Unquestioning acceptance of a generative model’s output leads to difficulty distinguishing between facts and falsehoods. Algorithms are trained to predict the next word in a string of words. No matter how good they get at that task, they aren’t really reasoning. Even if a machine makes a mistake, it won’t be able to fix it without context and memory, both of which it lacks.

The more users accept an algorithm’s answer as fact, the more their evaluation and judgment skew. Algorithmic models often struggle with overfitting. When they fit too closely to the information in their training dataset, their accuracy can plummet when they are presented with new information for analysis. 

Populations Most Affected by Overreliance on AI 

Generally, overreliance on generative technology can negatively impact humans’ ability to think critically. However, low confidence in AI-generated output is related to increased critical thinking ability, so strategic users may be able to use AI without harming these skills. 

In 2023, around 27% of adults told the Pew Research Center they use AI technology multiple times a day. Some of the individuals in this population may retain their critical thinking skills if they have a healthy distrust of machine learning tools. The data must focus on populations with disproportionately high AI use and be more granular to determine the true impact of machine learning on critical thinking. 

Critical thinking often isn’t taught until high school or college. It can be cultivated during early childhood development, but it typically takes years to grasp. For this reason, deploying generative technology in schools is particularly risky — even though it is common. 

Today, most students use generative models. One study revealed that 90% have used ChatGPT to complete homework. This widespread use isn’t limited to high schools. About 75% of college students say they would continue using generative technology even if their professors disallowed it. Middle schoolers, teenagers and young adults are at an age where developing critical thinking is crucial. Missing this window could cause problems. 

The Implications of Decreased Critical Thinking

Already, 60% of educators use AI in the classroom. If this trend continues, it may become a standard part of education. What happens when students begin to trust these tools more than themselves? As their critical thinking capabilities diminish, they may become increasingly susceptible to misinformation and manipulation. The effectiveness of scams, phishing and social engineering attacks could increase.  

An AI-reliant generation may have to compete with automation technology in the workforce. Soft skills like problem-solving, judgment and communication are important for many careers. Lacking these skills or relying on generative tools to get good grades may make finding a job challenging. 

Innovation and adaptation go hand in hand with decision-making. Knowing how to objectively reason without the use of AI is critical when confronted with high-stakes or unexpected situations. Leaning into assumptions and inaccurate data could adversely affect an individual’s personal or professional life.

Critical thinking is part of processing and analyzing complex — and even conflicting — information. A community made up of critical thinkers can counter extreme or biased viewpoints by carefully considering different perspectives and values. 

AI Users Must Carefully Evaluate Algorithms’ Output 

Generative models are tools, so whether their impact is positive or negative depends on their users and developers. So many variables exist. Whether you are an AI developer or user, strategically designing and interacting with generative technologies is an important part of ensuring they pave the way for societal advancements rather than hindering critical cognition.

[arundolyn]

man my tolerance for annoying people is just . Nonexistent huh

[pyrochrome-tumbles]

Petition to rebrand AI as “MA”, mass automation. Because that’s what it actually is.

[self-spaghettification]

they/themavos real