Study: ChatGPT is Bad for Your Brain

Post Reply New Topic

Doesn't matter mate
It's s**t

It looks really bad from the sidelines for everyone involved

And what's with this craze of trying to publicly embarrass people

The moderator really ought to know better than to let this carry on

It's vile

I'm not sure anyone's seeking to publicly humiliate anyone else, but ongoing patterns of problematic behaviour should be called out, lest they continue and cause bigger problems in the future.

If you see posts that appear intended to embarrass people (as opposed to posts intended on discussing ideas) please report them, but not every disagreement in a debate is intended to embarrass people. Sometimes they're just disagreements over the facts, or what the facts represent.

If someone is losing they can lose with grace and concede, rather than holding out until the other side has explained why they're wrong so thoroughly a toddler would understand.

Do you intend on constructively contributing to the discussion, or just complaining about it?

I'm just saying how it looks from the outside mate

You know, the peanut gallery

The moderator is responsible for threads that are allowed to get into a state where one person is being singled out and this is what this thread looks like

Denying it doesn't change that

There are rules about bringing a persons intelligence and ability into question

And that's what I'm seeing here

Tell me I'm wrong because I'm sure you will but it changes nothing

I've got a feeling this could be my last post, but I'm going to say it: Cyberdora has been treated shamefully.

You'd have more of a point if it wasn't a consistent and on-going issue.

At some point someone has to identify the problem if there's ever going to be hope of improvement.

If casual spectators haven't noticed, maybe they haven't been paying close enough attention and if they haven't been paying close enough attention maybe their observations aren't carrying all that much weight.

If someone only has a superficial understanding of a topic, they will inevitably embarrass themselves if they get into arguments over that topic. It's not the fault of the people who notice that they don't know what they're talking about, it's the fault of the person who chose to put themselves in that position.

What do you propose as a solution, participation trophies for everyone and no one can refute anyone else's claims for fear of hurting their feelings?

No one is doing that.

It will evidently surprise you that the moderator does know better.

There are much wider issues here than you appreciate - it is disappointing though that you just boil it all down to an attack with no visible attempt at reading the details.

It's not about me though is it

It's about the direction you have taken this thread in

And by the way as well as everything else this thread is off topic so well done oh wise one

Well it seems it is an ongoing issue

And now your calling out the intelligence of the people reading this..dear me

But anyway I'm in talks with the organ grinder so you can get back to your monkey business

Not your intelligence, only your familiarity.

You can be a genius, but if you haven't been on the receiving end of the behaviour being called out there's a good chance you're unaware of it, or at least unaware of how consistency it becomes a problem.

You are selectively picking one post where I specifically responding to a series of snark, insinuations and condescension aimed at me and not instigated by me. Should I have known better? I was wondering why it was allowed to continue.

why? I was attempting to address the thread being derailed (please read my previous posts) I tried my best to stick to the topic which is "is chatgpt bad for the brain". After I established my position the other person mocked me about blooms taxonomy and cheating. Unless I am mistaken he is neither an authority on higher education academic integrity or neuroscience. So hence my surprise at my being singled out as being out for being "out of my depth" when I work in the higher education sector and (respectfully) I am not sure you or ethe other person are an authority to deem whether I am "out of my depth or not.

Otherwise I will abide by your other requests in your capacity as a moderator.

Tell the whole story, not just the parts that benefit you. I mocked you about Bloom and "gamification" - because you were using them wrong, and kept using them wrong, while claiming to know what you're talking about.

Whether or not anyone is an "authority" on a subject seems irrelevant, as it's not their "authority" that makes them right, but the fact that they're right that makes them right. It is not necessary to be an "authority" on something to be knowledgeable. Fretting about credentials seems like a distraction.

In addition to that, simply working "in the higher education sector" doesn't mean much without knowing what exactly you do. You could be a janitor for all we know. Or work in admissions. Or a secretary. None of which would make you so uniquely qualified to opine on the subject as you seem to expect others to be.

Frankly, getting a bunch of terms wrong, and explaining them wrong, does not demonstrate being "in one's depth". And if I weren't knowledgeable on the subject, then how would I know you were wrong?

Also, doesn't it seem a little silly to admit that you don't even know what my qualifications are, to then decide that I can't possibly be qualified to opine on the subject?

Wouldn't it be funny, hilarious even, if these subjects were in fact within my area of expertise, education, and/or professional experience. If you really really wanna know, I can tell ya - but you won't like it.

Seems like a lot of people care about authority or credentials right up until they find out the person actually has them. Then goalposts get moved, and the person gets accused of being arrogant or condescending, for having the audacity to meet the expectations that were demanded, or otherwise being able to back up their claims.

Well, since you ask me, I'd say ditching the snark ought to do the trick. Refuting claims is fine by me. I don't know why you suggest it isn't, or why you think I have any interest it trophies, but if you can explain that courteously, I'm happy to listen.

Nothing personal, just curious why cornflake "deemed" why I am out of my depth on the subject "is chatgpt bad for your brain". Carry on.

thank you

^ But that's not what this is about.