Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Appears strongly imbalanced

Article summary:

1. The article discusses the current state of AI systems and their lack of user documentation, relying instead on Twitter influencer threads.

2. The author provides a quick reference chart summarizing the state of Large Language Models (LLMs) from different companies such as OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and Anthropic.

3. The article highlights various ways to use AI for writing, including drafting content, improving writing quality, and assisting with tasks, while also addressing concerns about AI-generated content and biases.

Article analysis:

The article titled "How to Use AI to Do Stuff: An Opinionated Guide" provides an overview of various AI systems and their applications. However, upon critical analysis, several potential biases and shortcomings can be identified.

1. Biased Selection of AI Systems: The author focuses primarily on a few specific AI systems, such as GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, Claude 2, and ChatGPT. This selection may not represent the full range of available AI systems and could lead to a biased perspective on their capabilities.

2. Lack of Evidence and Unsupported Claims: The article makes claims about the effectiveness and capabilities of different AI systems without providing sufficient evidence or references to support these claims. For example, it states that GPT-4 is the most capable AI tool for writing without offering any evidence or comparisons with other systems.

3. One-Sided Reporting: The article presents a positive view of AI systems and their potential uses but fails to adequately address potential risks and limitations. While it briefly mentions concerns about biases in training data and the possibility of AI-generated content being incorrect or misleading, these issues are not explored in depth.

4. Promotional Content: The article includes links to specific AI systems and encourages readers to use them without providing a balanced assessment of alternative options or considering potential conflicts of interest.

5. Missing Points of Consideration: The article does not discuss important ethical considerations related to the use of AI systems, such as privacy concerns, algorithmic bias, job displacement, or the impact on human creativity and decision-making processes.

6. Unexplored Counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives on the use of AI systems. It assumes that using these tools will improve writing quality without considering potential drawbacks or challenges associated with relying heavily on automated content generation.

7. Partiality in Comparisons: When comparing different image generation tools (DALL-E, Midjourney, Adobe Firefly), the article suggests that Midjourney is the best system without providing sufficient evidence or considering other factors such as user preferences or specific use cases.

8. Incomplete Discussion of Risks: While the article briefly mentions the potential for AI systems to be used unethically for manipulation or cheating, it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of these risks or offer guidance on how to mitigate them.

Overall, the article presents a biased and one-sided view of AI systems, focusing on their positive aspects while neglecting potential risks and limitations. It lacks evidence to support its claims and fails to provide a balanced assessment of alternative options and perspectives.