[Opinion. No wonder our world is is such a tragic state. Technology has rendered us incapable of expressing any opinions beyond AI. AI can be manipulated to benefit its creator. Hint: That's why it's given away for free.

To call this 'learning' is not accurate. We rarely remember anything we've looked up. Why? It will be there next time.

This is especially perilous for those 'studying' for advanced degrees. I have caught several theses and dissertations embellished by AI.

We are all becoming gullible fools, slaves to the machines that will one day become us.]

Credit: Brittanica, Psychology Today

Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger identified in 1999 what has come to be called the Dunning-Kruger effect: a cognitive bias with which people with limited knowledge in a given domain tend to systematically overestimate their own competence, sometimes called "unconscious incompetence".

Those in the bottom quartile of performance often rate their skills as far above average. Unskilled individuals make poor decisions, and their lack of skill prevents them from recognizing their errors.

The effect stems from a lack of metacognition, or the ability to accurately self-assess one's own knowledge.

Conversely, high performers often underestimate their competence, mistakenly assuming tasks easy for them are also easy for others. 

This phenomenon shows that individuals often need a certain level of expertise to realize how little they know.

They are not lying. They genuinely cannot see the gap between what they know and what they do not know, because accurate self-assessment requires a baseline of domain knowledge they do not yet possess.

What makes podcasting particularly potent as a vehicle for this effect is parasocial intimacy. Research published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media has documented that long-form audio formats generate strong parasocial relationships, where listeners feel genuine emotional closeness to hosts.

When you feel like someone is your friend, you lower your epistemic defenses. You stop asking “is this true?” and start asking “why does my friend believe this?” That is a profoundly different cognitive orientation, and it is one that bad actors, intentional or otherwise, exploit constantly.

Joe Rogan is the most visible figure in this ecosystem, and the numbers are staggering. The Joe Rogan Experience regularly ranks as the most listened to podcast in the United States, with reported listenership in the tens of millions per episode. About eighty percent of his audience is male. That gender skew matters, and we will come back to it.

What matters here is the scale and the content. An analysis by Yale Climate Connections published in November 2025 documented Rogan deploying five distinct techniques of science denial, what cognitive scientist John Cook calls FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories.

In a single episode, Rogan hosted two fringe climate contrarians, Richard Lindzen and William Happer, and the trio spent over two hours recycling climate myths that had already been scientifically refuted in peer-reviewed literature.

Rogan did not present this as an opinion. He presented it as research. His listeners received it accordingly.

31 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

This phenomenon shows that individuals often need a certain level of expertise to realize how little they know

Nonsense. I don't need a phenomenon to show me how dumb I am.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

[Opinion. No wonder our world is is such a tragic state. Technology has rendered us incapable of expressing any opinions beyond AI. AI can be manipulated to benefit its creator. Hint: That's why it's given away for free.

To call this 'learning' is not accurate. We rarely remember anything we've looked up. Why? It will be there next time.

This is especially perilous for those 'studying' for advanced degrees. I have caught several theses and dissertations embellished by AI.

We are all becoming gullible fools, slaves to the machines that will one day become us.]

Credit: Brittanica, Psychology Today

Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger identified in 1999 what has come to be called the Dunning-Kruger effect: a cognitive bias with which people with limited knowledge in a given domain tend to systematically overestimate their own competence, sometimes called "unconscious incompetence".

Those in the bottom quartile of performance often rate their skills as far above average. Unskilled individuals make poor decisions, and their lack of skill prevents them from recognizing their errors.

The effect stems from a lack of metacognition, or the ability to accurately self-assess one's own knowledge.

Conversely, high performers often underestimate their competence, mistakenly assuming tasks easy for them are also easy for others. 

This phenomenon shows that individuals often need a certain level of expertise to realize how little they know.

They are not lying. They genuinely cannot see the gap between what they know and what they do not know, because accurate self-assessment requires a baseline of domain knowledge they do not yet possess.

What makes podcasting particularly potent as a vehicle for this effect is parasocial intimacy. Research published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media has documented that long-form audio formats generate strong parasocial relationships, where listeners feel genuine emotional closeness to hosts.

When you feel like someone is your friend, you lower your epistemic defenses. You stop asking “is this true?” and start asking “why does my friend believe this?” That is a profoundly different cognitive orientation, and it is one that bad actors, intentional or otherwise, exploit constantly.

Joe Rogan is the most visible figure in this ecosystem, and the numbers are staggering. The Joe Rogan Experience regularly ranks as the most listened to podcast in the United States, with reported listenership in the tens of millions per episode. About eighty percent of his audience is male. That gender skew matters, and we will come back to it.

What matters here is the scale and the content. An analysis by Yale Climate Connections published in November 2025 documented Rogan deploying five distinct techniques of science denial, what cognitive scientist John Cook calls FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories.

In a single episode, Rogan hosted two fringe climate contrarians, Richard Lindzen and William Happer, and the trio spent over two hours recycling climate myths that had already been scientifically refuted in peer-reviewed literature.

Rogan did not present this as an opinion. He presented it as research. His listeners received it accordingly.

This reads like an AI production to me

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Rogan did not present this as an opinion. He presented it as research

He comes across as having a worse-than-average case of Dunning-Kruger. His body language, manner of speaking and dialogue all align to bring me to that conclusion.

I don't agree with your analysis of why AI has been made available to the general public. It's not unusual for software to be made available for free to essentially run a massive beta test.

49 minutes ago, wil iam not said:

This reads like an AI production to me

I don't care... AI output generally comes from what it consumed as input during training ... and that almost exclusively came from humans. I can understand the post and nothing seems to stand out as nonsensical.

The OP's opinion of the reason AI was released to the public does have a hint of paranoia.

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I don't agree with your analysis of why AI has been made available to the general public. It's not unusual for software to be made available for free to essentially run a massive beta test.

Search engines are free, but they have become extremely limited in what they return now.

AI is going the same way. Why wouldn't it? Intelligence agencies and activist groups like Google employees want to control what information the public has access to.

The OP says this "people with limited knowledge in a given domain tend to systematically overestimate their own competence"

There's already sort of a reverse with AI, but I'm not sure if it has a name. Take a subject you know a whole lot about and ask AI about it. You'll soon notice biases and mistakes and realize it's not very smart. But with everything else, you'll assume it knows what it is talking about.

I have a question. When AI takes everyone's jobs, will robots pay income tax? Where will governments get the funds to run countries and their vast new social security with so many unemployed?

10 minutes ago, davb said:

Take a subject you know a whole lot about and ask AI about it. You'll soon notice biases and mistakes and realize it's not very smart.

I do have one area of knowledge where I am probably the foremost expert in the world.... LOL. However.... hold the applause because it is an incredibly small niche. No surprise..... it is about a form of gambling and my knowledge pertains to extracting the most profit from the opportunity.

I have seen only one short article on the topic from a well known professional gambler/writer about 25 years ago. Otherwise, the subject has been ignored. The article also did not discuss the exact gambling situations that have been prevalent since it was published. The article is of no help for the recent or current opportunities.

Due to the extremely limited written material, no LLM will have been trained on the topic. If AI knows anything about my specialty... it will almost certainly be wrong. Just for fun, I will ask AI after I hit SUBMIT.

PS. AI's response was surprisingly lengthy. It consisted of very elementary advice that would already be understood by any seasoned gambler after getting the details of the opportunity. The advice showed no deep understanding nor did it suggest how to study and improve your results. I am surprised that only 1 piece of its advice was in error

14 minutes ago, phetphet said:

I have a question. When AI takes everyone's jobs, will robots pay income tax? Where will governments get the funds to run countries and their vast new social security with so many unemployed?

"AI is not going to take jobs from people. People who use AI are going to take jobs from people that don't."

A lot more people at keyboards will lose jobs than screw-gun operators.

4 hours ago, davb said:

Search engines are free, but they have become extremely limited in what they return now.

statements are just noise without at least some evidence

5 hours ago, davb said:

AI is going the same way. Why wouldn't it? Intelligence agencies and activist groups like Google employees want to control what information the public has access to.

a little paranoia goes a long way... hmmm google employees are an activist group? does that include the management? Doesn't sound logical to me.

5 hours ago, davb said:

Take a subject you know a whole lot about and ask AI about it. You'll soon notice biases and mistakes and realize it's not very smart.

can you give an example from your personal experience? or is this something you 'heard'? AI and search engines are often wrong when details of some new technology changes... but for stable science and most other slow changing subject matter they perform well.

15 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Joe Rogan is the most visible figure in this ecosystem

Joe Rogan is one of the coolest broadcasters ever.

He broke of the mold of being a blockhead reading a script and always suited up.

He works out and encourages people to work out.

He's had thousands of guests on. He makes his living by talking to as many people as possible. You don't have to agree with every word each of his guests says. You need to take in information and then process it yourself, as with any other source. Joe Rogan is only mind control if you let him be.

But he broke the mold and started talking about topics that most broadcasters were talking about. Joe Rogan is a revolutionary and pioneering broadcaster.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Joe Rogan is one of the coolest broadcasters ever.

He broke of the mold of being a blockhead reading a script and always suited up.

He works out and encourages people to work out.

He's had thousands of guests on. He makes his living by talking to as many people as possible. You don't have to agree with every word each of his guests says. You need to take in information and then process it yourself, as with any other source. Joe Rogan is only mind control if you let him be.

But he broke the mold and started talking about topics that most broadcasters were talking about. Joe Rogan is a revolutionary and pioneering broadcaster.

I'm the generation of Jean Shepherd, Bob Fass. People who told stories, from their own history and experiences and imagination. People you'd invite into your home.

It would appear Joe Rogan is making his living by further dividing Americans with conspiracies. If you're from either coast, driving across Middle America in the middle of the night listening to call-in and shock jocks is a real eye opener.

Prefer NPR and college stations. I'm crazy enough already.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Joe Rogan is one of the coolest broadcasters ever.

He broke of the mold of being a blockhead reading a script and always suited up.

He works out and encourages people to work out.

He's had thousands of guests on. He makes his living by talking to as many people as possible. You don't have to agree with every word each of his guests says. You need to take in information and then process it yourself, as with any other source. Joe Rogan is only mind control if you let him be.

But he broke the mold and started talking about topics that most broadcasters were talking about. Joe Rogan is a revolutionary and pioneering broadcaster.

'Only mind control if you let it be’ sounds reassuring, but that confidence is exactly what makes influence hard to notice in real time.

When ideas are repeated in a familiar, conversational setting, they don’t feel like persuasion—they just start to feel like common sense—which is exactly how propaganda works.

17 hours ago, davb said:

. Take a subject you know a whole lot about and ask AI about it. You'll soon notice biases and mistakes and realize it's not very smart.

AI is a plausibility engine. It relies on a mass of accumulated evidence. Until the mass of new evidence outweighs what is in its database, it will continue to provide erroneous information.

Think of it as trying to turn an oil tanker 180 degrees with a dinghy.

33 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AI is a plausibility engine. It relies on a mass of accumulated evidence. Until the mass of new evidence outweighs what is in its database, it will continue to provide erroneous information.

Think of it as trying to turn an oil tanker 180 degrees with a dinghy.

I think data is a better choice of words than evidence. If enough "experts" wrote articles claiming Joseph Lyons was a homosexual, AI would confirm Joseph Lyons was a homosexual.

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AI is a plausibility engine. It relies on a mass of accumulated evidence. Until the mass of new evidence outweighs what is in its database, it will continue to provide erroneous information.

Think of it as trying to turn an oil tanker 180 degrees with a dinghy.

I would suggest AI is a probability engine trained on human expressions of plausibility.

Curiously, I have noticed recently with ChatGPT that it can sometimes appear to exhibit political bias.
In fact, this morning I asked it explicitly: ‘Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?’

It started to address 2020, then hesitated and pivoted to saying 'Trump won the 2024 election'.
I queried the answer and it replied that it was a hallucinated response.

Maybe Sam Altman has gone full MAGA — but is that really probable or even plausible?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/22/trump-had-phone-call-with-openais-sam-altman-last-week.html

17 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I would suggest AI is a probability engine trained on human expressions of plausibility.

Curiously, I have noticed recently with ChatGPT that it can sometimes appear to exhibit political bias.
In fact, this morning I asked it explicitly: ‘Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?’

It started to address 2020, then hesitated and pivoted to saying 'Trump won the 2024 election'.

Maybe Sam Altman has gone full MAGA — but is that really probable or even plausible?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/22/trump-had-phone-call-with-openais-sam-altman-last-week.html

This is the answer Gemini gave to a slighly different question:

did Donald Trump win the 2020 election?

No, Donald Trump did not win the 2020 election. Joe Biden won the presidency, receiving 306 electoral votes compared to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by a margin of approximately 7 million votes.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

This is the answer Gemini gave to the same question:

did Donald Trump win the 2020 election?

No, Donald Trump did not win the 2020 election. Joe Biden won the presidency, receiving 306 electoral votes compared to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by a margin of approximately 7 million votes.

I dumped my subscription to ChatGPT after two years and now use mainly Google AI.

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

I dumped my subscription to ChatGPT after two years and now use mainly Google AI.

I do not pay for subscriptions to any news service or AI.

Well i sure am no expert on AI matters but have read a lot lately that the more they teach the computers, the faster the computers go beyond what was taught as computers can link up with any other computer so their learning is compounded. I heard one "expert" say that by 2034 computers will be able to outthink an human. Currently, (no link but easy to find) several of the top AI companies have released 10's of thousands of employees who created AI to replace themselves! Oracle as an example one Monday morning sent emails to 30 thousand of their employees notifying them that they no longer had a job! (easy to google Oracle and email firing employees so you can read it for yourself). Fortunately, I am retired so they can't replace me with a computer/robot. I also note that CHINA is zooming ahead with real life robots to entice both men and women looking for a slave. And, one of their robots ran a half marathon race earlier this week and set a new speed record for that run! Next I guess will be robot soldiers - so what will China do with all their humans replaced by robots?

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It would appear Joe Rogan is making his living by further dividing Americans with conspiracies

People are divided no matter what.

Half the population hates Trump.

Many conspiracies have some truth to them.

So when podcasters bring them up, it's to bring things to light.

But no one is entirely honest and people are trying to make money, so use your own intuition when taking in any information. Mainstream media is full of lies anyway, so why target Joe Rogan?

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

This is the answer Gemini gave to a slighly different question:

did Donald Trump win the 2020 election?

No, Donald Trump did not win the 2020 election. Joe Biden won the presidency, receiving 306 electoral votes compared to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by a margin of approximately 7 million votes.

And a very sad day for America!

43 minutes ago, Screaming said:

And a very sad day for America!

Sadder when a senile sexual predator screwed up world trade with tariffs, and shut down 20% of the world's oil supply because he needed to divert attention from the Epstein files, in which he figures so prominently.

Here's a news flash - everyone, American or not, cares when their hip pocket is affected. No-one gives a rat's rectum about gender, except for MAGA morons.

16 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

statements are just noise without at least some evidence

"2 + 2 = 4"

..................

Where is your evidence.?

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I think data is a better choice of words than evidence. If enough "experts" wrote articles claiming Joseph Lyons was a homosexual, AI would confirm Joseph Lyons was a homosexual.

And therein lies the danger. Manipulation by numbers of hits.

4 hours ago, Presnock said:

so what will China do with all their humans replaced by robots?

Logan's Run.

The Gen 1.0 sexrobots with Ai and life like forms, will fully shut down all the brothels...sorry, health massage venues, all over Thailand.