

I’ll speak directly to the last question: if you use AI as a means to generate ‘creative’ output (see: ideas on various topics/themes stolen from other folks), improv will likely help with learning to think on your feet and confidence in expressing yourself with reference just to the electrical impulses in your own noggin.
But I don’t think that alone is sufficient to fix a truly ‘AI-rotted brain’, which I take to mean a mind that reaches for easy answers and shortcuts. That’s a bigger project, and there’s a lot of good comments here and on your other post in that vein.
I don’t know your IRL circumstances, but a project idea for you: take a walk around the place you live with a notepad. Write down every question you have about any old stuff that catches your fancy/strikes you as weird (probably a good idea to take pictures too). Try and find the answers to those questions without using AI - instead, talk to a librarian, send an email to your local historical society, etc. etc. Ask for resources about the topic in question. Bonus points if you take that info and make something creative with it - a poem, a short story about someone contemporary to the thing you’re curious about, one act play, interpretive dance, whatever.
Like this for you simply because, depending on where you live and what catches your fancy, there may not be that much info fed into an AI database, but there could totally be a book/collection in an archive/knowledgeable person who’d be happy to chat about it.








I really want to know more about these specific people you’ve run into this with, particularly age, education level, and maybe political affliations (curious if it runs the gamut or not).
For my part, Wikipedia’s usually a good starting point ‘source’, like an encyclopedia would be. But the actual sources referenced by a given article, carefully evaluated, are much better. A Google Search (once you scroll past the AI summary) can also yield good sources. I don’t bother with LLMs at all, too many issues with accuracy.
End of the day, these are all signposts to actual sources, not sources themselves. What you find through any of them need to be evaluated by where they are getting their information. It also depends on the topic and level of discussion. I’m personally OK with quoting Wikipedia about a general piece of trivia, but if I’m trying to make a serious argument about something it’d be silly to rely on it if I don’t know how strong the source behind it is. Could be well-researched and rock solid, could be bullshit with a flimsy reference no one’s caught yet.