Something I’ve been curious about in Pokémon discussions is whether people who feel very confident or experienced in a specific category — competitive play, lore, meta analysis, grading, printing history, etc. — can sometimes (without meaning to) become less open to new theories, unfamiliar data, or deeper research angles.
It’s human nature that once we “know” a topic well, it becomes easy to slip into an “I already understand this” mindset. But sometimes that confidence can make it harder to adapt when new information shows up — especially in a hobby with so many layers, unknowns, and evolving discoveries. So my question is:
Do you think this happens in the Pokémon community — even among people who are genuinely skilled or knowledgeable? And if so, what helps keep conversations open, curious, and growth-oriented rather than rigid or dismissive?
Let go of your preconceived notions and knowledge and accept that they wrote this before ai was a thing and only now posted it. In a way, kingzard was the original ai.
flagged by an AI detector = immediately dismissed.
This literally proves my point.
AI detectors are notoriously unreliable, especially with concise, well-structured writing. They mark tons of human posts as “AI-generated” just because the writing is clean or neutral. Scholars get flagged. Lawyers get flagged. Reddit posts get flagged. Etc and in the 90s people were dismissed by others who used the internet. Also you’re wrong about this is gi joe cards
Both are true. Experts can become more dismissive of ideas that do not align with their experience and idiots can think that they know more than god. We must find a happy middle ground - trust the experts, but explore new ideas provided that the facts align.
I am a professor, I read AI slop all the time and I know it when I see it. The detector supports the point and makes it easy to show to others. The gratuitous and unnecessary use of em dashes. The repeated use of superfluous words that mean the exact same thing. The bland, unemotional, and sanitized writing. The complete disconnect from the way someone in the hobby would write.
While you wrote a bit of this post yourself, you had to use AI to write this portion which refutes the AI detector:
It is ironic that you claim experienced people can’t appreciate your opinions, yet you have no opinions of your own and require a robot to generate them for you.
