lol you really are one of these AI cultists huh? Do I get to hear "it's a godsend for the untalented" for the 28043rd time? Your proposed model for adoption do

lol you really are one of these AI cultists huh? Do I get to hear "it's a godsend for the untalented" for the 28043rd time? Your proposed model for adoption doesn't "show up the elites", it destroys the ability of anyone who doesn't already have elite-level epistemic integrity checking skills to ground themselves in reality, and honestly may well over time subvert even decent epistemics via automation blindness. Using new tools is something that people should absolutely do, but using them stupidly for the sake of using them creates a small-to-modest momentary edge for an infinitessimal fraction of this especially reckless class of early adopters who luck out while most of them just serve as guinea pigs as the world figures out what the things are actually good for and irons out the rough edges. Regulating the way you ingest new information such that you can tell fact from fiction isn't "trivia recall", it's a way to retain a semblance of soundness of mind. It's readily apparent from the increasingly unhinged landscape of conspiracy theories that it is in fact not better to wildly guess at gaps in your knowledge if those guesses have a chance of becoming sticky, and human brains are a lot better at filling in gaps than unfilling them. You're not making a good case for not grounding usage of these tools in a realistic understanding of what they're good at - even setting aside the nominative determinism that's becoming increasingly apparent in your replies