You were talking about “the people worldwide”. As for the second sentence, im not sure what you mean. In what way are the non-AI users not very different from AI users? Would they too ask an AI a question and then post the answer without checking?
Oh dont worry i didnt actually think you believe that 90% of the world use AI. I just like to use flippant comments as a jumping-off point to provide actual numbers.
This doesnt work. AI users arent a subset of non-AI users. Thats like doing a medicinal study for dick-hard-pills on a few men and upon discovering it a success, declaring: now every man, woman and child will have a hard dick at their leisure.
Well that’s because women usually don’t have a dick. That is a big difference (mileage may vary). And a reason to assume dick-medication wouldn’t work in them.
I said there is no reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently. If you have a reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently you should state that reason. Now it’s just an empty statement of “that doesn’t work”.
Yes, but non-AI users can become AI users. Women can’t become a fully biological man with XY chromosomes.
Maybe you should look at it more like GLP-1 agonists. They work in obese and overweight people, but don’t cause much weight loss in normal-weight people. But there is no reason to assume they won’t work in people that are now of normal weight when they become overweight.
My man just made a statement that calls at least 90% of people worldwide stupid. I don’t know if that’s a record, but it’s something.
Pretty unlikely considering only around ~3/4 of the world have internet access at all
Well we are talking about AI users so those are the people we were talking about. But there is no reason to assume the non-AI users are very different
You were talking about “the people worldwide”. As for the second sentence, im not sure what you mean. In what way are the non-AI users not very different from AI users? Would they too ask an AI a question and then post the answer without checking?
You’re reading too much into this…. It was a joke my man
But yes, often times results in a certain subset of people are extrapolated to people at large. That is how nearly every study in humans is done.
Oh dont worry i didnt actually think you believe that 90% of the world use AI. I just like to use flippant comments as a jumping-off point to provide actual numbers.
This doesnt work. AI users arent a subset of non-AI users. Thats like doing a medicinal study for dick-hard-pills on a few men and upon discovering it a success, declaring: now every man, woman and child will have a hard dick at their leisure.
Well that’s because women usually don’t have a dick. That is a big difference (mileage may vary). And a reason to assume dick-medication wouldn’t work in them.
I said there is no reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently. If you have a reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently you should state that reason. Now it’s just an empty statement of “that doesn’t work”.
Most women dont have a dick and non-ai users dont use AI. Like, by definition
Yes, but non-AI users can become AI users. Women can’t become a fully biological man with XY chromosomes.
Maybe you should look at it more like GLP-1 agonists. They work in obese and overweight people, but don’t cause much weight loss in normal-weight people. But there is no reason to assume they won’t work in people that are now of normal weight when they become overweight.