There are ideas that emerge. One is the idea of gel mann amesia being the source of a lot of people complaining about genai code gen, yet people fall into the l

There are ideas that emerge. One is the idea of gel mann amesia being the source of a lot of people complaining about genai code gen, yet people fall into the logical fallacy of trusting a misleading source of information they don't know much about even if they are a domain expert in another area and themselves demand higher quality information to conclude anything in that domain. The other question is, would you have fared any worse without gen ai? Personally I find old school sources more comprehensive. I once picked up a book for free at my garden center, it contained all information about tomatoes including color photos of most every possible deficiency, pest, and disease. If something goes wrong with my tomatoes in a 30 second trip to my bookshelf I have access to high quality information. Meanwhile, what is the genAI trained on? Is my book in the training set? Maybe it is. But maybe its also polluted with the blogspam slop of the last 15 years on the internet, and that isn't easy to parse out without having a book like mine on hand, or better yet the horticultural training the authors behind that book I have on hand have had. Trusting my book is therefore trusting the highest quality output from the corpus of all humanity. And it is like that with most other things. For most things you might encounter in life, there is a high quality source of information or book for low cost or free available. Why reach into the dark and pull out words from the sack when you can get the real deal so easily?