You have actually managed to out-stupid yourself. I didn't think it could be done!

A lie of omission is when pertinent information is withheld. I'm not even going to try to parse the rest of your nonsensical sentence.

I can't tell if you are lying or mistaken.

So AI can't be intelligent, but can be stupid? It seems AI is a lot like the typical person who posts as AC on Slashdot.

It's ironic that the human(s) reporting this couldn't do so without (apparently) lying, in the title no less. The article talks about accuracy, and an inaccuracy is not a lie unless it is intentional. Of course whomever wrote the title is likely seeking to impose their own anti-AI bias to the story, and so chose to lie about what the study actually says.

If you ask the average human to use a non-AI search engine to find out the answer to 100 non-trivial questions I can assure you that you will get many more than 10 incorrect answers.

I'm a real-time embedded Linux engineer. You are, well ... We all already know what you are. Off you go now little troll.

You have no idea what you are talking about. (As usual)

2019 was 7 years ago, and the Linux kernel has had hard realtime capability for a very long time. Of course, the kernel doesn't live in a vacuum, so using a properly configured kernel, using an embedded distribution, and properly tuning it is necessary for best results, as discussed in the linked document. I don't even have to read the NASA paper you didn't bother to link to in order to guarantee that you didn't read and understand it, then genuinely represent what it said.

There is always that one guy that needs to raise his hand and say "Oh ... look at me! I'm ignorant too!" Don't worry, everyone sees you little boy.

If you think psychedelics make people stupid then you are ignorant.

At no point in the link you provided is any such claim made (that it is one of the most popular choices among players.) Would you like to play again?

It said your choice was "unusual", not "poor". I would wager that AI has a better idea what actual choices most players make playing that particular online game than you do by basing your belief on the idea that your choice is the usual one.

The problem isn't the tools; it is the people. When AI is better human critical thinking and deductive reasoning capabilities will decline further, not magically return to a higher measure.

This, exactly. People are assuming that correlation equals causation here. IQ and critical thinking skills, as well as reading comprehension ability, have been on the decline for quite some time. AI is actually much better at getting things right than the average person who uses google to feed their confirmation bias and find echo chambers in which they can bask. I'm not going to post a bunch of links, because anyone can use the prompt "studies showing IQ and critical thinking in decline" in your "favorite" agentic AI. A hammer, the internet, and AI are three tools equally capable of constructive and destructive uses, and this study just shows that the same trend that started with technology in the hands of the incompetent is merely continuing as expected.

I don't know what AI system(s) you are using, or how long it has been since you tried, but Claude is extremely impressive and while it isn't perfect it is far more effective than google searching. I recently used it to troubleshoot a guitar problem I had with dead notes when fretting on the first fret and it was quite competent. I was able to interact with it and gain a solid understanding of what was causing the issue, including the physics behind it. Then it helped me find a great repair shop to replace the nut, after explaining the process in detail, including a temporary work around involving shimming the nut. As far as programming goes people need to read this before they keep spouting the old "AI can't work" lie.