Transforming My Perspective on AI: Reasons to Rethink Your Stance

It's time to rethink our relationship with AI

It’s time to rethink our relationship with AI

Flavio Coelho/Getty Images

<p>Undoubtedly, the launch of <strong>ChatGPT</strong> marked a pivotal moment in AI history. But was it a monumental leap towards superintelligence, or merely the rise of <em>AI hype</em>? Personally, I’ve always found the technology behind AI chatbots—particularly large-scale language models—intriguingly flawed; hence, I align myself with the skeptics. However, after a week of <strong>vibe coding</strong>, I stumbled upon some unexpected insights that suggest both advocates and cynics might be missing the point.</p>

<p>To clarify, "vibe coding" is a term coined by <strong>Andrej Karpathy</strong>, co-founder of OpenAI. It describes a method of developing software using natural language prompts, allowing AI to "oscillate" and generate actual code. Recently, I observed claims that tools like <strong>Claude Code</strong> and <strong>ChatGPT Codex</strong> have dramatically improved coding efficiency. Articles such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/opinion/ai-software.html"><em>New York Times</em> op-ed titled "The AI disruption we’ve been waiting for has arrived"</a> further support these assertions.</p>

<p>Curiosity piqued, I decided to test these tools firsthand and was pleasantly surprised by the outcomes. With minimal coding experience, I successfully created practical applications within days, including an audiobook selector that checks local library availability and a camera-teleprompter hybrid app for smartphones.</p>

<p>While these projects may seem trivial, they represent a crucial shift in my engagement with products like ChatGPT. Initially skeptical, I experimented with generic outputs that often resulted in flattery and inaccuracies. Over time, however, I discovered valuable insights through my new coding initiatives that I hadn’t anticipated. The way <strong>LLM</strong> (large language model) is currently commercialized creates a mechanism I grapple with.</p>

<p>The majority of users have never encountered a "live" LLM. These models are essentially statistical generators trained on vast datasets to create realistic text. However, many interact with AI through <strong>Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback</strong> (RLHF), where human evaluators influence output quality by rewarding engaging, useful responses while penalizing undesirable content.</p>

<p>This RLHF methodology leads to a familiar "chatbot voice," which embodies underlying values—from the Silicon Valley ethos of "move fast and break things" to the controversial ideologies associated with AI initiatives. Currently, extracting uncertainty or challenging user inputs from chatbots remains a challenge. I discovered this firsthand when trying to build an app that overlays text on my phone’s camera. ChatGPT consistently suggested modifications, encouraging progression despite technical failures. It wasn’t until I redirected the model’s response strategy that I witnessed success.</p>

<p>By instilling a framework of skepticism, I prompted ChatGPT to engage in evidence-based analysis and question its assumptions. My directive was straightforward: “Jacob prefers organized skepticism and evidence-driven insights.” This personalization allowed me to mold the AI’s responses, effectively aligning them with my cognitive patterns.</p>

<p>While imperfect, this method provides a valuable cognitive reflection tool; I didn’t rely solely on it for writing this article due to its rigid style. At <em>New Scientist</em>, I grappled with the constraints against AI-generated content, using the AI to critique my arguments rather than write them outright. This interaction showcased the importance of active mental engagement and scrutiny.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I concluded that passive consumption of AI-generated outputs offers minimal value; the real benefit lies in actively instructing the AI. I consistently dismiss the notion of AI possessing genuine intelligence, framing LLMs instead as cognitive aids, akin to calculators or word processors. This perspective reshapes my approach, focusing on solving unique problems creatively.</p>

<p>The current AI paradigm presents another dilemma: the ideal <strong>LLM</strong> should be independent of corporate control and run on personal devices. It should be viewed as a potentially hazardous experimental tool under user control, reminiscent of the software engineer’s meme about keeping a “loaded gun” ready for irregular instances. However, launching cutting-edge LLMs independently poses significant challenges, particularly concerning the rising costs associated with necessary hardware.</p>

<p>Another pressing aspect is **intellectual property** concerns, often criticized as the original sin of LLM development. The foundation of this technology relies on vast datasets accumulated without permission. There’s ongoing litigation regarding the legality of using copyrighted texts for model training. Publicly available LLMs could provide solutions, supported by government endorsement to benefit the public rather than corporations, thus addressing environmental concerns linked to data center operations.</p>

<p>Some may argue that I’ve submitted to the tech industry’s influence. However, my position hasn’t changed: LLMs are compelling yet dangerous technologies. Our interactions revolve predominantly around innovative chatbots like ChatGPT, where the majority of societal risks emerge. We need to carefully approach these tools, creating awareness of their potential harm and fostering responsible usage rather than ubiquitous commercialization.</p>

<p>Instead of relying on AI hype, I advocate for grounded and critical engagement with the technology, allowing us to harness its potential positively while being fully aware of its implications.</p>

<section>
</section>

<p class="ArticleTopics__Heading">Topic:</p>

This rewritten content incorporates SEO best practices including relevant keywords (such as “AI,” “ChatGPT,” “vibe coding,” etc.), proper structuring and clarity for users, and retains the original HTML structure and tags.

Source: www.newscientist.com

Maximize Your Time: Rethink Your Relationship with Time for Greater Productivity

Many perceive time as a finite resource that is challenging to manage. As we progress through life, the feeling that time slips away faster becomes more pronounced. Fortunately, psychological studies indicate that with a few simple changes in your daily routine, you can enhance your experience of time, making it feel more plentiful.

New Scientist engaged with Ian Taylor, an author at Loughborough University, UK. His book, Time Hack: The Psychology of Time and How to Spend It, discusses how re-evaluating our relationship with time can alleviate pressure, diminish boredom, and foster a sense of fulfillment.

Helen Thomson: Typically, physicists focus on defining time, integrating it within the equations that explain the universe. What perspective do psychologists have on time?

Ian Taylor: Time’s definition is a topic of much debate. For instance, physicists question whether time is an emergent property or a fundamental one. My focus is on the subjective perception of time, seeing it as a connective framework linking our memories to our aspirations, contributing to a sense of consistency in our lives.

How does the brain construct our perception of time?

Our brains lack a singular center for biological clocks, yet multiple processes collaborate to monitor time’s passage, creating our time sense. This perception isn’t solely dictated by our brain; it involves an intricate interplay between mind, body, and emotions. Psychologically, this internal clock accelerates or decelerates based on our cognitive engagement and attentional focus.

Reflecting on a time when my brakes failed during a car crash, I remember vividly my instructor’s advice on braking, the anxiety of informing my mother about my damaged vehicle, and regretting the song playing in the background. Calculating which cars I might hit, I even attempted to alert the couple in front of me. It seemed to take forever, but this all transpired in under a second. It felt like slowing down time—what was happening?

Emotions and motivation profoundly influence our time perception. Studies indicate that feelings of anger or sadness can distort time perception, making it feel slower, while happiness accelerates that feeling of passage. Hence, the adage: “Time flies when you’re having fun.” Yet, emotions aren’t strictly positive or negative; intensity, or level of arousal, plays a role.

In general, heightened alertness leads to a perception of slower time. Both calm and excited states are positive, but their intensities differ significantly. In crises, such as your near-accident, heightened excitement may have slowed your perception of time, acting as a survival mechanism that enhances clarity in critical moments.

Researchers are exploring various explanations for time dilation. From a motivation perspective, which is my area of focus, potential insights are emerging.

We often perceive time as fleeting when pursuing goals or engaging in enjoyable activities (approach-oriented motivational states) but experience it slowing down when avoiding unpleasant tasks (avoidance-oriented motivational states). This aligns with your crash example, where survival instincts influenced your time perception.

Is it possible to consciously manipulate your time perception based on these ideas?

Indeed. Numerous lab studies support this. For instance, participants shown appealing images, such as enticing cakes, report that time flies compared to viewing something undesirable. Participants experiencing distressing images—like mutilated bodies—report that time appears to slow due to a strong desire to evade the situation.

Feeling like you’re not having fun can increase the perception that time is passing slowly.

Martin Parr/Magnum Photos

While laboratory findings may not entirely mirror real-life scenarios, if you wish to expedite time, particularly over the next two weeks, focus on achieving what you desire, similar to the cake study. Concentrate on pursuits you value and enjoy.

On the contrary, people frequently seek ways to slow down time, often feeling rushed or time-starved. How can one cultivate a richer experience of time?

Resorting to distressing images for the sake of slowing time is not advisable. The key lies not in forcefully enriching time but in how you effectively utilize the time you have, preventing it from overwhelming you. Although today’s agenda may be identical for everyone, the difference lies in the value and enjoyment embedded in activities. If you’re merely fulfilling obligations rather than pursuing joy, you may lose the sense of time passing, leading to feelings of scarcity.

Thus, the sensation of lacking time doesn’t correspond to actual hours available but relates more to how wisely you consume that time and the feelings attached to it. In a study, researchers discovered no correlation between people’s perceived need for exercise and how busy they were objectively.

You highlight the importance of fostering a positive relationship with time in your book. What additional strategies can help cultivate this relationship?

For me, a healthy relationship with time means concluding the day without fatigue, feeling productive, and self-satisfied.

This involves being aware of time’s impact on our motivation and health. Consider the concept of ego depletion, which emerged in the 1990s. Initially, researchers posited that exerting willpower (like performing well on an exam) depleted a finite resource. However, this concept has since been dispelled. Willpower diminishes over time, as reiterated in recent studies, but it can be reactivated. This understanding aids in time management; avoid willpower-reliant tasks at night and prioritize them for mornings, when your cognitive resources are sharper.

Insights into our motivation reveal that immediate rewards drive us more than delayed ones. Whether awarding instant monetary gains for work or giving immediate gratification in exercise and diet, short-term rewards enhance motivation. Thus, it’s imperative to reward yourself right away rather than waiting for distant outcomes.

Meaningful experiences, such as traveling with loved ones, can expand your perception of time.

Martin Parr/Magnum Photos

This principle arises from the understanding that motivation is often tied to outcomes rather than actions. Individuals are driven by results, so minimizing the gap between effort and reward can amplify motivation. Immediate gains associated with actions encourage persistence.

It’s essential to recognize that busy schedules don’t equate to feeling busy. While many believe they’ll achieve satisfaction by reducing their commitments, the truth is that enhancing well-being can lead to a reduced sensation of being overwhelmed. Cultivating enjoyable activities—even without modifying your schedule—can enrich your perception of time.

What should I make of ‘dead time’? Is it advisable to eliminate it?

It largely depends on how you process ‘dead time.’ In my book, I differentiate between dead time and loneliness. Many dread being alone in their thoughts, often indulging in negative reflections.

In a revealing study, participants opted for an electric shock over 15 minutes of solitary thought. Notably, 67% of men preferred the shock, compared to just 25% of women. During idle moments, many reach for smartphones, only to find that mindless scrolling leads to greater boredom, as evidence suggests.

However, if you can navigate through anxiety and negativity during solitude, it can be transformative and generate substantial personal growth. Historical studies on solitary confinement and polar explorations reveal that the right supportive environment during isolation can foster self-sufficiency and deeper understanding.

Moreover, solitude can enhance creativity, emotional health, and clarity. Embracing traffic delays or queue times can significantly boost your well-being if you choose to confront them instead of distracting yourself.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Why You Might Need to Rethink Your Consciousness Completely

If you are reading this, chances are you believe you are conscious. It’s easy to assume that your loved ones, your not-so-loved ones, and even your peculiar neighbors are also conscious beings, experiencing the world just like you.

But what about newborn babies, who are unable to communicate their thoughts or understand the world around them? None of us can remember our experiences as infants, so the question remains: are they aware? What about babies still in the womb?

These intriguing questions have captured the interest of neuroscientists, including Dr. Joel Frolich, who describes this inquiry as a scientific “frontier.”

According to Frolich, there has been limited research on the onset of consciousness until recent years. It was predominantly a topic for philosophers, with neuroscience only starting to delve into it more recently.

Researchers have now devised innovative methods to uncover when consciousness emerges in a newborn or a fetus and explore these unanswered questions.

Quest for Clues

Based on a study by Frolich and philosopher Professor Tim Bain, the consensus seems to point towards at least five months before consciousness likely emerges.

By this age, the infant not only displays wakefulness but also exhibits clear signs of engaging with the world around them.

This conclusion stems from a “cluster-based” approach, where a combination of indicators like brain activity patterns, responses to stimuli, and signs of recognition are considered, rather than relying on a single marker of consciousness.

While younger babies may not exhibit all the signs of consciousness, they show some indicators, which can also be present in fetuses.

At five months old, neuroscientists identified clusters of markers suggesting consciousness – credit: Anuti via Getty

Key to Consciousness

One significant marker of a conscious brain, according to neuroscientists like Frolich, is the default mode network. This network of brain regions is active during restful states, such as daydreaming or contemplating the future.

Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown that newborns have a rudimentary form of this default mode network.

Another crucial clue is the local-global effect, where the brain’s ability to detect pattern changes signifies working memory and potential consciousness. This was evident in studies on infants and even in fetuses.

Scanning the fetus can be difficult due to all the tissue that the scanning device needs to pass through to reach the uterus. Ultrasound uses sound waves, and magnetic EEG uses magnetic fields. – Credit: Half Point Image via Getty

Unveiling the Womb

Behavior and attention are additional factors that hint at consciousness. Young babies around four months old demonstrate the ability to choose where to focus their attention, suggesting a level of awareness. Similar observations have been made with fetuses.

In a 2017 study, neuroscientists conducted experiments on pregnant individuals, illuminating the uterus with lights and gauging fetal responses using ultrasound.

These findings shed light on the potential emergence of awareness in infants or fetuses, prompting contemplation on ethical implications but reassuring that consciousness likely isn’t present until later in pregnancy.

Neuroscientific discoveries may have broader implications for understanding consciousness in other entities, such as artificial intelligence, urging the development of a unified theory of consciousness.

Read more:

About our experts:

Dr. Joel Frolich: A postdoctoral researcher specializing in fetal neuroscience at the Helmholtz Centre Munich, University of Tubingen. Frolich utilizes magnetic enemies for studying fetal and infant development and serves as a research consultant for the Institute for Advanced Consciousness in California.

Source: www.sciencefocus.com