Daniël (DF) Luttig

Clinical Psychologist (Private Practice) | Filosofie | Abstrak & Surrealisme | Skrywer | Classic Films | Sports | Video games | 🍔 & 🍻 | Pod🎙️: Luttig se Lens

[Daniël (DF) Luttig @LuttigDaniel]

Welkom by Luttig se Lens, ’n Afrikaanse podsending waar ons aktuele sake bespreek, reflekteer en sinmaak van die menslike toestand en ingesteldheid.
Webtuiste: https://t.co/Ux9i1IBbcN
#podsending #luttigselens #luttig_se_lens #afrikaans #sielkunde #filosofie #kuns #podcast

[MessiXtra @MessiXtraHQ]

🚨 Lionel Messi’s Incredible FIFA World Cup Records:

• Most Assists (8)
• Most G/A (21)
• Most Ko G/A (11)
• Most MOTM (11)
• Most Golden Balls (2)
• Most Chances Created (67)
• Highest Average Rating (8.52)
• Most Successful Dribbles (125)

~ Only player to score in every knockout round of a single World Cup.

~ Only player to get MOTM award in every knockout round of a single World Cup.

~ 3 goals away from becoming the top scorer in World Cup history.

[ESPN FC @ESPNFC]

Pep Guardiola walks away from Manchester City having won every trophy imaginable 🩵🤍

Today, we say to goodbye to one of the greatest to ever do it 🐐

[Manchester City @ManCity]

The greatest.

[Manchester City @ManCity]

"What a time we have had together." 🩵

[Danica @Danica0x]

That smile is all the more reason to spend the nap watching her sleep 😍

[Ryan Hart @thisdudelikesAI]

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts.

So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world.

What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable.

Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations.

The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead.

Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described.

The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding.

The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months.
Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.

Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now.

She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihtesham2005]

A Norwegian neuroscientist spent 20 years proving that the act of writing by hand changes the human brain in ways typing physically cannot, and almost nobody outside her field has read the paper.

Her name is Audrey van der Meer.

She runs a brain research lab in Trondheim, and the paper that closed the argument was published in 2024 in a journal called Frontiers in Psychology. The finding is brutal enough that it should have changed every classroom on Earth.

The experiment was simple. She recruited 36 university students and put each one in a cap with 256 sensors pressed against their scalp to record brain activity. Words flashed on a screen one at a time.

Sometimes the students wrote the word by hand on a touchscreen using a digital pen, and sometimes they typed the same word on a keyboard. Every neural response was recorded for the full five seconds the word stayed on screen.

Then her team looked at the part of the data most researchers had ignored for years, which is how different parts of the brain were communicating with each other during the task.

When the students wrote by hand, the brain lit up everywhere at once.

The regions responsible for memory, sensory integration, and the encoding of new information were all firing together in a coordinated pattern that spread across the entire cortex. The whole network was awake and connected.

When the same students typed the same word, that pattern collapsed almost completely.

Most of the brain went quiet, and the connections between regions that had been alive seconds earlier were nowhere to be found on the EEG.

Same word, same brain, same person, and two completely different neurological events.

The reason turned out to be something nobody had really paid attention to before her work. Writing by hand is not one motion but a sequence of thousands of tiny micro-movements coordinated with your eyes in real time, where each letter is a different shape that requires the brain to solve a slightly different spatial problem.

Your fingers, wrist, vision, and the parts of your brain that track position in space are all working together to produce one letter, then the next, then the next.

Typing throws all of that away. Every key on a keyboard requires the exact same finger motion regardless of which letter you are pressing, which means the brain has almost nothing to integrate and almost no problem to solve.

Van der Meer said it plainly in her interviews.

Pressing the same key with the same finger over and over does not stimulate the brain in any meaningful way, and she pointed out something that should scare every parent who handed their kid an iPad.

Children who learn to read and write on tablets often cannot tell letters like b and d apart, because they have never physically felt with their bodies what it takes to actually produce those letters on a page.

A decade before her, two researchers at Princeton ran the same fight using a completely different method and ended up at the same answer. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer tested 327 students across three experiments, where half took notes on laptops with the internet disabled and half took notes by hand, before testing everyone on what they actually understood from the lectures they had watched.

The handwriting group won by a wide margin on every question that required real understanding rather than surface recall.

The reason was hiding in the transcripts of what the two groups had actually written down.

The laptop students typed almost word for word, capturing more total content but processing almost none of it as they went, while the handwriting students physically could not write fast enough to transcribe a lecture in real time, which forced them to listen carefully, decide what actually mattered, and put it in their own words on the page.

That single act of choosing what to keep was the learning itself, and the keyboard had quietly skipped the choosing and skipped the learning along with it.

Two studies. Two countries. Same answer.

Handwriting makes the brain work. Typing lets it coast.

Every note you have ever typed instead of written went into your brain through a thinner pipe. Every meeting, every book highlight, every idea you captured on your phone instead of on paper was processed at half depth.

You did not forget those things because your memory is bad. You forgot them because typing never woke the part of the brain that would have made them stick.

The fix is the thing your grandmother already knew.

Pick up a pen. Write the thing down. The slower road is the faster one.

[Rian Doris @RianSweetDoris]

https://t.co/DSCdChYjMq

[👑Don lizz👑💥 @rekoil92]

The greatest 20 minute demolition to ever happen 🔥🔥

[Holy Bible @Holy__Bible1]

Matthew 19:26

[HSBC SVNS @SVNSSeries]

Out on top 🇿🇦

South Africa are your #HSBCSVNS Series Winners for 2026

[Springbok Sevens @Blitzboks]

Golden again! 🥇
The #Blitzboks reign in Vancouver and claim back-to-back tournament titles for the first time this season 🤝
#HSBCSVNS #PoweredByUnity

[The Bible @The__Bible7]

Deuteronomy 31:8

[The Bible @The__Bible7]

Psalm 42:5

[Sholy Nation Sports @Sholynationsp]

🇦🇷 Lionel Messi’s legacy speaks for itself:

👕 1139 games
⚽ 898 goals
🎯 407 assists
🤝 1305 G/A
🏆 48 trophies
🎩 60 hat-tricks
🥅 70 free-kick goals
👟 6 European Golden Boots
🥇 8 Ballon d’Or

Greatest player of all time 🐐😳