If anything, with the right tooling LLMs should improve the quality of our thinking. For example, how much better would your thinking be if you could ask the LLM to reliably figure out all the 2nd and 3rd effects of your ideas, or to identify hidden assumptions.
Thoughts on thinking
131–140 of 459 posts
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#132If anything, with the right tooling LLMs should improve the quality of our thinking. For example, how much better would your thinking be if you could ask the LLM to reliably figure out all the 2nd and 3rd effects of your ideas, or to identify hidden assumptions.
Agree but LLMs vary. So we need an LLM that really try to reason from first principles.
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#133This feels off, as if thinking were like chess and the game is now solved and over. What if you could turn your attention to much bigger things than you ever imagined before? What if you could use this new superpower to think more not less, to find ways to amplify your will and contribute to fields that were previously out of your reach?
I fully agree. I for one am excited about a future in which we can take on bigger challenges. With (good) LLMs, we won't need to spend as much time thinking about "how" to get things done, and can spend more time lucidly deciding "what" we want done.
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Beautifully put!
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I guess the main (valid) concern is that LLMs get so good at thought I don't think that's a valid concern, because LLMs can't think. They are generating tokens one at a time. They're calculating the most likely token to appear based on the arrangements of tokens that were seen in their training data. There is no thinking, there is no reasoning. If they they seem like they're doing these things, it's because they ar…
> LLMs can't think. They are generating tokens one at a time Huh? They are generating tokens one at a time - sure that's true. But who's shown that predicting tokens one at a time precludes thinking? It's been shown that the models plan ahead, i.e. think more than just one token forward. [1] How do you explain the world models that have been detected in LLMs? E.g. OthelloGPT [2] is just given sequences of games to tr…
Yes, let's cite the most biased possible source: the company that's selling you the thing, which is banking on a runway funded on keeping the hype train going as long as possible...
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#136Completely 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 calcula…
Well I can extract a square root by hand. We all had to learn it and got tested on it.
No one to day learns that anymore. The vast, vast majority have no idea and I don’t think people are dumber because of it.
That is to say, I think it’s not cut-and-dried. I agree you need to learn something, but something’s it’s okay use a tool.
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#137I think the article describes a real problem in that AI discourages thought. So do other things, but what's new about AI is that it removes an incentive to try.
It used to be that if you spent your day doomscrolling instead of writing a blog post, that blog post wouldn't get written and you wouldn't get the riches and fame. But now, you can use AI to write your blog post / email / book. If you don't have an intrinsic motivation to work your brain, it's a lot easier to wing it with AI tools.
At the same time... gosh. I can't help but assume that the author is just depressed and that it has little to do with AI. The post basically says that AI made his life meaningless. But you don't have to use AI tools if they're harming you. And more broadly, life has no meaning beyond what we make of it... unless your life goal is to crank out text faster than an LLM, there's still plenty of stuff to focus on. If you genuinely think you can't possibly write anything new and interesting, then dunno, pick a workshop craft?
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#138Well said, and such an important point.
> Developing a prompt is like scrolling Netflix, and reading the output is like watching a TV show.
That line really hits home for me.
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only terrifying because of how we’ve structured society. There’s a version of the trajectory we’re on that leads to a post-scarcity society. I’m not sure we can pull that off as a species, but even if we can, it’s going to be a bumpy road.
the barrier to that version of the trajectory is that "we" haven't structured society. what structure exists, exists as a result of capital extracting as much wealth from labor as labor will allow (often by dividing class interests among labor). agreed on the bumpy road - i don't see how we'll reach a post-scarcity society unless there is an intentional restructuring (which, many people think, would require a pretty…
I think we think of it as 'extracting' because people are coerced into jobs that they hate. I think AI can help us exit the paradigm of working as extracting. Basically, passion economy (ai handles marketing, internet distribution). Allows you to focus on what you actually like, but it can actually make money this time.
Re: Thoughts on thinking
#140Very strange. Either the author uses some magic AI, or I am holding it wrong. I used LLMs since a couple of years, as a nice tool. Besides that: I have tried using LLMs to create cartoon pictures. The first impression is “wow”; but after a bunch of pictures you see the evidently repetitive “style”. Using LLMs to write poetry results is also quite cool at first, but after a few iterations you see the evidently repetit…
Maybe you are not that great at using the most current LLMs or you don't want to be? I find that increasingly to be the most likely answer, whenever somebody makes sweeping claims about the impotence of LLMs. I get more use out of them every single day and certainly with every model release (mostly for generating absolutely not trivial code) and it's not subtle.
What kind of problems are you solving day-to-day where the LLMs are doing heavy lifting?