The focus on technical and scientific studies here shouldn’t dissuade anyone from questioning more approachable subject matters, namely anything involving studies or scientific inquiries should be placed under suspicion. Moreso when it relates to hot headed topics of the moment that drive clicks and engagement (outrage).

This all reminds me of the Gell-Man Amnesia which is an absolutely real thing, and this turn of events with regards to WSJs capability (if it can be called that) shouldn’t surprise anyone.

You’ll be downvoted for this and my comment will be marked as off topic or whatever but you capture the gist of it. These news outlets shouldn’t delve into anything requiring the use of word “epistemic” their “collapse”, when they fail to report on much more basic things.

A great deal of anti-AI posts as of late seem like milquetoast pearl clutching to me. They don’t want to outright say they feel threatened/devalued but the arguments they put forward are not only unconvincing, but in this case among many others actively work against them.

nb. I tried really hard to not point out the smugness of Zettelkasten which I suspect emboldens this feeling of superiority, because I’d rather sit this one out and see how it goes. Something tells me the AI will win by a landslide.

Fine, but I ask you what does it mean to "win" in this context?

What's the difference between milquetoast pearl clutching and a take you disagree with about a currently hot topic?

How do you tell when someone who disagrees with you is coming from a place of feeling threatened or devalued vs. a place you'd consider legitimate?

Hoping your methods are reliable and transferable, you're applying them to "a great deal" of posts so maybe they'd be helpful to me too.