But there’s a critical difference between using agents to accomplish defined objectives and spinning up 20 agents because the dashboard makes you feel like a general commanding an army.
作者指出，使用AI代理实现特定目标和仅仅因为仪表板让人感觉像指挥军队一样使用大量代理之间存在关键区别，这引发了关于AI工具使用目的的思考。
Impact of having doctor visit being transcribed by AI The GDPR issues aside, there is a strong indication that writing is the thinking for physicians but they might not realise that. - [ ] return #pkm
When a Fugu model is allowed to call itself recursively, reading its own prior output as context and deciding whether to revise its coordination strategy, a new form of test-time scaling emerges.
大多数人认为AI模型的能力主要取决于训练阶段，推理阶段只是应用已学知识，但作者提出Fugu模型可以在推理时通过自我递归调用实现能力扩展，这挑战了传统AI推理阶段的局限性，暗示小型模型可能通过自我迭代达到超越其初始能力水平的表现。
Built on Unified Intelligence, Uni-1 understands intention, responds to direction, and thinks with you.
令人惊讶的是：UNI-1不仅仅是生成图像，而是真正理解用户意图、响应方向并与用户共同思考，这种'共同思考'的能力代表了AI从简单工具向智能伙伴的转变，是AI发展中的一个重要里程碑。
记忆系统学会了"做梦"
大多数人认为AI的'学习'过程是基于算法和数据的处理，而'做梦'通常被视为人类独有的无意识思维活动。作者暗示OpenClaw已经发展出超越传统学习模式的创造性思维过程，这挑战了AI能力边界的主流认知。
I feel confident, though, that the slippery feeling people associate with AI products is a solvable problem, and the solution looks more like thoughtful interface design than better models. The models will keep improving on their own. The harder work is building the structure around them so that their output feels reliable, legible, and trustworthy.
大多数人认为AI产品的可靠性将随着模型技术的进步而提高，但作者认为真正的挑战在于围绕模型构建结构和界面，而非模型本身。这一观点挑战了AI领域的技术决定论思维，强调了设计的重要性。
Research is thinking. Outlining is thinking. Writing is thinking. Any portion of that done by AI is less thinking done by you.
大多数人认为AI写作减少了思考量，但作者认为这种观点过于简化。实际上，作者展示了AI写作需要更多的思考、批判性判断和严格的编辑过程，远非简单的'少思考'。她的AI写作过程涉及复杂的交互、深度反思和多轮修改，实际上可能比传统写作需要更多的思考投入。
Estimation seems much more likely to promote clear statistical thinking.
Need to change our way of thinking
https://web.archive.org/web/20251226113306/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/26/ai-dark-ages-enlightenment Opinion piece asking if AI is taking on the similar (feudal) role of priests, kings and lords to outsource our decisions to. Leaving the enlightenment behind, and the romanticist invention of the self.
Kommer den artificiella intelligensen att bli bättre på att tänka än den mänskliga? Kognitionsvetaren Peter Gärdenfors förklarar varför så inte är fallet. Den mänskliga intelligensen består av en rad olika färdigheter och specialiteter som har förfinats under tusentals år. Mycket återstår innan den artificiella intelligensen kan mäta sig med det tänkande som inte bara människor utan även djur har. När vi förstår att vår intelligens är en bred palett av många olika förmågor ter sig tanken på att AI-tekniken trumfar oss i schack och kan skriva avancerade texter inte lika skrämmande. Utifrån ett brett forskningsunderlag förklarar Gärdenfors varför AI-tekniken inte kan och inte kommer att kunna tänka på samma sätt som människor och djur gör. »Peter Gärdenfors tilldelas Natur & Kulturs debattbokspris 2025 för att han fördjupar AI-debattens centrala begrepp och utmanar dess utgångspunkter. Med lätt språk och stabil lärdom blottlägger han tänkandets evolutionärt slipade mekanismer, och skärper bilden av vad intelligens är och vilken plats tekniken intar i vår digitala värld.« – Juryns motivering
[[Kan AI tänka by Peter Gärdenfors]] via Sven Dahlstrand, dahlstrand.net Publ okt 2024 Seeks to define what thinking actually is, and how that plays out in other animals and humans. The 2nd part goes into sofrware systems and AI and how they work in comparison.
tools such as GenAI have begun to lead human actors to increasingly treat technologies as social actors... Humans perceive social cues in technology, which may trigger the (mis)application of interaction scripts learned from human interaction.
for - AI - as extreme human echo chamber - Jonathan Boymal - AI
They may excel in memorization or standardized test-taking, but when it comes to critical thinking; asking why a text exists, who it is meant for, and how it seeks to influence its audience, there is a noticeable gap. Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published
Interesting thought. This guy relates the upcome of AI (non-fiction) writing to the lack of willingness people have to find out what is true and what is false.
Similar to Nas & Damian Marley's line in the Patience song -- "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."
If you want to form an opinion about something, do this educated, not based on a single source--fact-check, do thorough research.
Charlie Munger's principle. "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."
It all boils down to a critical self-thinking society.