Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

51–60 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#51
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…

Good point.

Self-actualisation should be about doing the things that only you can. Not better than anyone else, but more like, the specific things that ony you, with the same of your experience, expertise, values and constraints can do.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#52
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.

Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#53

You are in a maze of twisty little passages that are not the same. You have to figure out which ones are not. Try this. The world is infinitely complex. AI is very good at dealing with the things it knows and can know. It can write more accurately than I can, spell better. It just takes stuff I do and learns from my mistakes. I'm good with that. But here is something to ask AI: "Name three things you cannot think abo…

I really don't understand your point. This in nonsense to me.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#54
> But now, when my brain spontaneously forms a tiny sliver of a potentially interesting concept or idea, I can just shove a few sloppy words into a prompt and almost instantly get a fully reasoned, researched, and completed thought.

I can't relate to this at all. The reason I write, debate, or think at all is to find out what I believe and discover my voice. Having an LLM write an essay based on one of my thoughts is about as "me" as reading a thinkpiece that's tangentially related to something I care about. I write because I want to get my thoughts out onto the page, in my voice.

I find LLMs useful for a lot of things, but using an LLM to shortcut personal writing is antithetical to what I see as the purpose of personal writing.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#55
I understand the depression. I'm a developer (professional) and I make music (ambitious hobby). Both arts heavily in a transformational process.

I'd like to challenge a few things. I rarely have a moment where an LLM provides me a creative spark. It's more that I don't forget anything from the mediocre galaxy of thoughts.

See AI as a tool.

A tool that helps you to automate repetitive cognitive work.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#56
"AI could probably have written this post far more quickly, eloquently, and concisely. It’s horrifying."

ChatGPT write that post more eloquently:

May 16, 2025 On Thinking

I’ve been stuck.

Every time I sit down to write a blog post, code a feature, or start a project, I hit the same wall: in the age of AI, it all feels pointless. It’s unsettling. The joy of creation—the spark that once came from building something original—feels dimmed, if not extinguished. Because no matter what I make, AI can already do it better. Or soon will.

What used to feel generative now feels futile. My thoughts seem like rough drafts of ideas that an LLM could polish and complete in seconds. And that’s disorienting.

I used to write constantly. I’d jot down ideas, work them over slowly, sculpting them into something worth sharing. I’d obsess over clarity, structure, and precision. That process didn’t just create content—it created thinking. Because for me, writing has always been how I think. The act itself forced rigor. It refined my ideas, surfaced contradictions, and helped me arrive at something resembling truth. Thinking is compounding. The more you do it, the sharper it gets.

But now, when a thought sparks, I can just toss it into a prompt. And instantly, I’m given a complete, reasoned, eloquent response. No uncertainty. No mental work. No growth.

It feels like I’m thinking—but I’m not. The gears aren’t turning. And over time, I can feel the difference. My intuition feels softer. My internal critic, quieter. My cleverness, duller.

I believed I was using AI in a healthy, productive way—a bicycle for the mind, a tool to accelerate my intellectual progress. But LLMs are deceptive. They simulate the journey, but they skip the most important part. Developing a prompt feels like work. Reading the output feels like progress. But it's not. It’s passive consumption dressed up as insight.

Real thinking is messy. It involves false starts, blind alleys, and internal tension. It requires effort. Without that, you may still reach a conclusion—but it won’t be yours. And without building the path yourself, you lose the cognitive infrastructure needed for real understanding.

Ironically, I now know more than ever. But I feel dumber. AI delivers polished thoughts, neatly packaged and persuasive. But they aren’t forged through struggle. And so, they don’t really belong to me.

AI feels like a superintelligence wired into my brain. But when I look at how I explore ideas now, it doesn’t feel like augmentation. It feels like sedation.

Still, here I am—writing this myself. Thinking it through. And maybe that matters. Maybe it’s the only thing that does.

Even if an AI could have written this faster. Even if it could have said it better. It didn’t.

I did.

And that means something.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#57
>>the process of creation >>my original thoughts >>I’d have ideas

As far as I can tell, LLMs are incapable of any of the above.

I'd love to hear from LLM experts how LLMs can ever have original ideas using the current type of algorithms.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#58
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I saw that and thought it was an interesting dichotomy.

I think a way to square the circle is to recognize that people have different goals at different times. As a person with a family who is not independently wealthy, I care a lot about being economically productive. But I also separately care about the joy of creation.

If my goal in making a loaf of bread is economic productivity, I will be happy if I have a robot available that helps me do that quickly. But if my goal is to find joy in the act of creation, I will not use that robot because it would not achieve that goal.

I do still find joy in the act of creating software, but that was already dwindling long before chatgpt launched, and mostly what I'm doing with computers is with the goal of economic productivity.

But yeah I'll probably still create software just for the joy of it from time to time in the future, and I'm unlikely to use AIs for those projects!

But at work, I'm gonna be directing my efforts toward taking advantage of the tools available to create useful things efficiently.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.

If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#60
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…

Knowing that what I do anyone can do, no matter how well I'll do it, is discouraging. Because then, what is my purpose? What can I say that I'm good at?
Post reply on HN