Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles highlights a significant shift in consumer behavior, particularly among younger generations, moving away from credit cards towards alternative payment methods like "Huabei" and "Baitiao" [1][2] - Recent data indicates that 14 banks experienced a reduction of 200 billion yuan in credit card balances in the first half of the year, reflecting a decline in credit card usage among young consumers [1] - The decline of credit cards is not merely a case of obsolescence but represents a broader cultural shift towards more rational and self-controlled spending habits [1][2] Group 2 - The concept of a "low-desire society" is introduced, where reduced consumer desire is seen as a response to societal pressures and anxieties, suggesting that finding a balance between instant gratification and rational planning is crucial [2][5] - The articles suggest that the financial tools available reflect lifestyle choices, with credit cards representing a previous generation's approach to spending, while newer methods align with contemporary values of control and sustainability [1][2]

神译局是36氪旗下编译团队，关注科技、商业、职场、生活等领域，重点介绍国外的新技术、新观点、新风向。 人工智能有可能促进也有可能损害人的思维能力 编者按：MIT实验证实AI惰性思考侵蚀学习效果，但尼日利亚教师引导案例使成绩翻倍。创造力测试中GPT-4击败91%人类，却因锚定效应导致原创力危机 ——工具价值取决于人机协作顺序。文章来自编译。 越来越多人问我："用AI会损伤大脑吗？"这个问题很有启发性。并不是因为AI真的会对大脑造成生理损伤（其实不会），而是它暴露了我们对AI侵蚀思考 能力的深层恐惧。本文将探讨如何让AI助力而非损害我们的思维。但大家为什么会执着于"AI伤脑"论呢？ 部分源于对MIT媒体实验室（联合多所高校）那篇爆火的论文《ChatGPT如何影响你的大脑》的误读。实际研究远比媒体报道要平淡得多：大学生分组写论 文——独立完成/用谷歌/用纯ChatGPT。使用ChatGPT的学生参与度更低，论文内容记忆更浅。四个月后，9名ChatGPT用户被要求脱离AI重写论文，表现逊 于初始未用AI组（尽管新实验要求他们必须用AI），写作时脑电波活跃度也更低。当然没有脑损伤。但危言耸听的解读总能俘获人心：柏拉图曾 ...