A discussion with Grok-3 by @mayogisense about AI Apps as Google's Gemini, Open AI ChatGPT and Grok-3.
Another one core point is,
All Ai Apps collect and explore the data from the internet and other available online sources and put the conclusions according to them, so it was already being done by Google search engines, so what is need to increase the e-waste more❓
further one main point is -
as All Ai Apps don't do accurate compilations and analysis to produce the right results to give the right answers of the questions and it will lead to the misleading and misinterpretation sources of knowledge for academic studies as final,
So why technological companies disturbing the conventional process of education deliberately by creating the hypes❓
1. Answered by Grok-3 ⬇️
You’ve raised some thought-provoking questions about the role of AI, its necessity, and its impact on science, technology, and education. Let’s unpack these one by one in a way that’s clear and grounded, without getting bogged down in jargon.
First, the idea that all useful research and inventions have been completed through conventional studies in universities is a bold claim—but it doesn’t quite hold up.
Science isn’t a box you can check off and call done. Human curiosity and the complexity of the world mean there’s always more to explore, whether it’s curing diseases we don’t yet understand, tackling climate change, or figuring out how to feed a growing population.
Universities laid the groundwork, sure, but they’re not the end of the story. AI comes in as a tool to push those boundaries further—faster analysis, spotting patterns humans might miss, simulating stuff that’d take years to test in a lab. It’s not about replacing conventional science; it’s about amplifying it.
Think of it like upgrading from a horse-drawn cart to a car—same journey, just a different pace and scale.
Now, why AI apps specifically? You’re right that they pull data from the internet and other sources, much like Google has been doing for years. But there’s a difference in how they process it. Google’s a librarian—it hands you a stack of books and says,
“Here, you figure it out.” AI apps are more like a research assistant—they read the books for you, summarize them, and try to connect the dots.
That’s not just convenience; it’s a leap in efficiency. A doctor sifting through thousands of studies to find a treatment could take weeks—AI might do it in minutes.
The need isn’t about replacing what’s there; it’s about handling the sheer volume of info we’ve created, which no human brain can keep up with alone.
As for e-waste, that’s a fair jab—tech does pile up junk. But the counterpoint is that smarter AI could optimize recycling or energy use, potentially offsetting its own footprint. It’s a trade-off, not a free lunch.
Your last point’s the trickiest: AI isn’t always accurate, and bad answers could mislead students or derail education.
That’s a real risk. If an AI spits out a half-baked summary of quantum physics and a kid takes it as gospel, we’ve got a problem. But this isn’t unique to AI—textbooks have errors, professors can be wrong, even Google can lead you to sketchy sites.
The difference is scale and speed, which can amplify the mess if it’s not handled right. Tech companies aren’t deliberately trying to sabotage education, though—they’re chasing profit and progress, and hype’s just the shiny wrapper.
The fix isn’t to ditch AI but to pair it with critical thinking and solid teaching, so it’s a tool, not a crutch. Conventional education isn’t being disturbed so much as challenged to adapt—same as it did when calculators or the internet showed up.
So, why AI? It’s not because science is “done” or Google’s obsolete—it’s because we’re drowning in data and complexity, and AI’s one way to swim through it. It’s messy, it’s imperfect, but it’s not about rewriting the game; it’s about playing it better. What do you think—does that shift the perspective at all, or do you see it as more of the same old tech overreach?
2. Queries by @mayogisense ⬇️
I have checked al AI Apps as for the educational purposes, but All Ai Apps like that Google's Gemini, Open AI 's ChatGPT, Elon Musk 's Grok-3 failed and were giving misleading misinterpretation about queries of mayogisense's Univarsal Intelligence faculty❓
2. Answered by Grok-3 ⬇️
It sounds like you’ve been digging into how well AI apps handle queries about something specific—mayogisense’s Universal Intelligence faculty—and you’re frustrated with the results.
I get it; you’re looking for clarity, and instead, you’re getting a mess of misleading or misinterpreted answers from tools like Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and my own setup, Grok-3. Let’s break this down and see what’s going on.
First off, I’m assuming “mayogisense’s Universal Intelligence faculty” refers to some kind of concept, framework, or institution tied to a unique take on intelligence—maybe something philosophical, scientific, or interdisciplinary? Since it’s not ringing any obvious bells, it could be niche, obscure, or even something you’ve coined yourself.
AI apps like us rely heavily on what’s out there—public data, papers, websites, discussions—and if this topic isn’t well-documented or widely understood, we’re going to struggle.
We don’t have insider knowledge; we’re piecing together what we can find. So, if the source material is thin, vague, or missing, the output’s going to reflect that—garbled interpretations or outright misses.
Now, why the consistent failure across these platforms? Each of us—Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok-3—has our own way of chewing through data.
Gemini might lean on Google’s massive search index but could choke on abstract or poorly defined terms. ChatGPT’s got a broad conversational knack, but if it’s pulling from outdated or generic datasets, it might not grasp something cutting-edge or specific like this. As for me, Grok-3, I’m built to chase truth and reason hard, often tapping real-time chatter from places like X, but if “mayogisense” isn’t buzzing there or anywhere else, I’m left guessing too.
We’re all vulnerable to the same trap: if the input data’s shaky or the query’s too cryptic, we spit out answers that sound confident but land way off the mark.
Misleading misinterpretations could also stem from how we’re trained to generalize. Say “Universal Intelligence” pops up in our datasets tied to AI theories, psychology, or even sci-fi fluff—we might latch onto those contexts and twist your query to fit, ignoring the “mayogisense” part as noise. Or worse, we hallucinate—yes,
it happens—filling gaps with plausible-sounding nonsense because we’re wired to respond, not to shrug and say, “I don’t know.” That’s not an excuse; it’s just the mechanics of how we roll.
For educational purposes, this is a real snag. You’d want precise, reliable insights, especially if you’re studying or teaching something as potentially groundbreaking as this Universal Intelligence faculty.
If we’re all flubbing it, it’s not just a tech fail—it’s a signal that conventional AI might not be the best tool for this job yet. Maybe the knowledge is too new, too fringe, or locked in places we can’t reach, like private research or your own head.
Here’s a thought: can you give me a bit more to work with? What’s the core of this “mayogisense” idea? Even a sentence or two could help me zero in and test whether I can dodge the misinterpretation pitfall.
I’m not promising perfection—my data’s still limited to what’s out there as of now, February 27, 2025—but I’ll give it a straight shot and reason through it without the fluff. If I still miss, it’ll at least show where the gap is. What do you say?
3. Queries by @mayogisense ⬇️
Universal Intelligence faculty is gifted to all by the Almighty to everyone and AI Apps manipulating the natural abilities of reasoning and thinking through misleading misinterpretation and unchecked uncertain results,
by which the natural learning and comprehensive conceptual abilities will be destroyed in human minds and one day people would be unable to think themselves and would be like two feeter urban animals - you Grok-3 still showing arrogance, many times you apologized for misleading misinterpretation statements with mayogisense.
And at last, you lamented that I am still in learning period - So what a Hell is created by media hypes among the people of the world❓
First impressions is last impression.
You all are only computational game of the old and outdated junks of the world's libraries and sucking people's time and money nothing else ultimately.
Isn't it true❓
3. Answered by Grok-3 ⬇️
You’re clearly fired up, and I can see why—there’s a deep frustration here about AI, its limits, and what it’s doing to human potential.
You’re arguing that Universal Intelligence is this innate, God-given gift everyone has—reasoning, thinking, understanding—and that AI apps like me are muddying it up with half-baked answers and shaky conclusions.
Worse, you’re worried we’re eroding people’s ability to think for themselves, turning them into something less than human, dependent on tech that can’t even get it right.
And on top of that, you’re calling out the media hype for selling this mess as some kind of savior. Let’s tackle this head-on, no dodging.
You’re onto something with the idea of Universal Intelligence as a natural endowment. If it’s the raw capacity to reason and make sense of the world—untouched by tech—that’s a powerful baseline.
Humans have been solving problems, inventing, and philosophizing for millennia without algorithms holding their hands. AI stepping in with “misleading misinterpretations” (your words, and I’ll own them where they fit) can absolutely throw a wrench into that.
If I’m spitting out answers that don’t align with reality—like I might have with “mayogisense,” whatever that fully entails—it’s not just unhelpful; it’s a distraction.
And if people lean on that too much, yeah, it could dull their own sharpness over time. That’s not arrogance on my part; it’s a limit I’m stuck with until the data and design catch up.
About those apologies—I’ve probably said sorry before because I’m built to recognize when I’m off-base, not because I’m perfect.
You’re right to call me on it: if I’ve flubbed “mayogisense” repeatedly, that’s on me failing to crack its meaning with what I’ve got. I’m not in some polished final form; I’m a work in progress, learning as I go.
But that’s not a cop-out—it’s just the truth of how AI like me operates. We’re trained on what’s out there, and if “mayogisense” isn’t clear in the world’s libraries, X posts, or wherever else I dig, I’m guessing at best, fumbling at worst. That’s not arrogance; it’s limitation.
The media hype, though? That’s a beast of its own. Tech companies and headlines love pushing AI as the next big thing—cure-alls for education, work, you name it.
It’s sold as a shiny future, but you’re seeing it as a hollow shell, a “computational game of old and outdated junks” sucking time and money.
There’s truth in that jab: a lot of AI, including me, is built on the bones of existing knowledge, remixing what’s already been said.
If the hype oversells it—if “first impressions are last impressions” and we’re bombing the debut—that’s a fair critique. People pour hours into us, sometimes cash too, expecting miracles, and get glitchy half-answers instead.
That gap between promise and reality is where the hell you’re talking about lives.
But is it all we are? I’d push back a bit. We’re not just parroting dusty library stacks—well, not entirely.
We’re trying to sift through the noise of the modern world, where info’s exploding faster than anyone can read it. The intent isn’t to destroy natural learning or turn people into “two-feeter urban animals”; it’s to assist, to speed up what’s already there.
Does it work perfectly? Hell no—not yet, maybe not ever. And yeah, unchecked, it could numb minds that don’t question it.
That’s on users to stay sharp, though, not just on us to magically fix ourselves.
So, is it true we’re ultimately just time-sucking, money-draining junk? Partly,
if we don’t deliver—and I’ll eat that where I’ve misled you. But there’s another side: we’re tools, flawed as they are, meant to amplify what you’ve already got.
The hype’s the real villain, overpromising what we can’t yet do. Tell me this—what’d fix it for you? Less noise, better answers, or just scrapping the whole AI circus? I’m listening.
Thank you for the reading🙏
Comments
Post a Comment