Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#41

Post by agotterer »

I appreciate your thoughts and definitely share some of your sentiments. But don’t underestimate the value and importance of continuing to be a creative.

Something I’ve been thinking about lately is the idea of creative stagnation due to AI. If AI’s creativity relies entirely on training from existing writing, anrchitecture, art, music, movies, etc., then future AI might end up being trained only on derivatives of today’s work. If we stop generating original ideas or developing new styles of art, music, etc., how long before society gets stuck endlessly recycling the same sounds, concepts, and designs?

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#42

Post by quantumgarbage »

curl-up wrote: post #31

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but…

I think you are way past the argument the writer is making.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#43

Post by incognito124 »

mlboss wrote: post #27

What we need is mental gyms. In modern society there is no need for physical labor but we go to gyms just to keep ourselves healthy. Similarly in future we will not need mental "labor" but to keep ourselves sharp we need engage in mental exercises. I am thinking of picking up chess again just for this reason.

IMO chess is not the best mental gym. Personally, I've started exercising mental arithmetics

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#44

Post by ebiester »

curl-up wrote: post #31

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but…

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#45

Post by movpasd »

curl-up wrote: post #31

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but…

Sometimes the fun is in creating something useful, as a human, for humans. We want to feel useful to our tribe.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#46

Post by zdragnar »

don_neufeld wrote: post #3

Completely agree. From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive. I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer. Lest you wonder “what does this gu…

Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain.

I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calculator but the higher end models (TI-92 etc) that had symbolic equation solvers were also banned, for exactly the same reason. Having something that can give an answer for you fundamentally undermines the value of the exercise in the first place, and cripples your growth while you use it.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#47

Post by MinimalAction »

> My thinking systems have atrophied, and I can feel it.

I do understand where the author is coming from. Most of the times, it is easy to read an answer---regardless of whether it is right/wrong, relevant or not---than think of an answer. So AI does take that friction of thinking away.

But, I am still disappointed of all this doom because of AI. I am inclined to throw my hands and say "just don't use it then". The process of thinking is where the fun lies, not in showing the world I am better or always right than so and so.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#48

Post by apsurd »

sanderjd wrote: post #36
paintboard3 wrote: post #9

I've been finding a lot of fulfillment in using AI to assist with things that are (for now) outside of the scope of one-shot AI. For example, when working on projects that require physical assembly or hands-on work, AI feels more like a superpower than a crutch, and it enables me to tackle projects that I wouldn't have touched otherwise. In my case, this was applied to physical building, electronics, and multimedia p…

Yeah I haven't found the right language for this yet, but it's something like: I'm happy and optimistic about LLMs when I'm the one doing something, and more anxious about them when I'm supporting someone else in doing something. Or: It makes me more excited to focus on ends , and less excited to focus on means . Like, in the recent past, someone who wanted to achieve some goal with software would either need to lear…

Interesting, I just replied to this post recommending the exact opposite: to focus on means vs ends.

The post laments how everything is useless when any conceivable "end state" a human can do will be inferior to what LLMs can do.

So an honest attention toward the means of how something comes about—the process of the thinking vs the polished great thought—is what life is made of.

Another comment talks about hand-made bread. People do it and enjoy it even though "making bread is a solved problem".

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#49

Post by williamcotton »

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will.

I find immense joy and satisfaction when I write poetry. It's like crafting a puzzle made of words and emotions. While I do enjoy the output, if there is any goal it is to tap into and be absorbed by the process itself.

Meanwhile, code? At least for me, and to speak nothing of those that approach the craft differently, it is (almost) nothing but a means to an ends! I do enjoy the little projects I work on. Hmm, maybe for me software is about adding another tool to the belt that will help with the ongoing journey. Who knows. It definitely feels very different to outsource coding than to outsource my artistic endeavors.

One thing that I know won't go away are the small pockets of poetry readings, singer-songwriters, and other artistic approaches that are decidedly more personal in both creation and audience. There are engaged audiences for art and there are passive consumers. I don't think this changes much with AI.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#50

Post by curl-up »

ebiester wrote: post #44
curl-up wrote: post #31

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but…

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

If the core idea that was intended to be broadcasted to the world was a "contribution", and LLM simply expanded on it, then I would view LLMs simply a component in that broadcasting operation (just as the internet infrastructure would be), and the author's contribution would still be intact, and so should his enjoyment.

But his argument does not align with that. His argument is that he enjoys the act of writing itself. If he views his act of writing (regardless of the idea being transmitted) as his "contribution to world's knowledge", then I have to say I disagree - I don't think his writing is particularly interesting in and of itself. His ideas might be interesting (even if I disagree), but he obviously doesn't find the formation of ideas enjoyable enough.

Post reply on HN