kbt22

It's all well deserved. However, concluding «modern progressivism [sic] works [like this]» is far-fetched. Now it sounds like a minor unknown professor in Colorado is jealous and wants to castigate a distant more famous university. I feel his pettiness does a disservice to the cause.

I disagree with the conclusion. AI systems out-persuaded expert humans in 2026. Should AI systems be prevalent in political debates, each of us will become experts at dealing with this, and it's not clear AI systems will out-persuade humans in the long run.

I really like Tufekci’s framing. The debate still feels weirdly powerless. You are either "pro" and in love with text parrots, or "anti" and dreaming of blanket bans, like you could outlaw 2+4 or 43x24. New techniques do not get uninvented. They just show up and stick around.

The real question is not "should AI exist?" It is "how do we keep our democracies sane" once cheap, scalable tools start melting effort, trust, and credibility. That part feels fixable.

Let’s get practical. Phones out of the bedroom. Kill infinite scroll. Notifications on a diet. One no-screen evening a week. Easy wins. And bigger picture: how do we relearn distrust without going full tinfoil? How do we stop asking screens for comfort and start asking them for facts, even when the facts are boring, ugly, or inconvenient? Screens are amazing at dopamine. They are bad at truth. The good news is we can design around that.

Everyone needs to find his way.

For me, talking about my childhood to someone that was non-judgemental helped me far more than lifting weight. But that was for me. I'm glad you found your way.