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

141–150 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#141

Post by quantadev »

hooverd wrote: post #104
quantadev wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. In the near term, I'm predicting a dramatic decline in software quality, because code was never understood and tested properly. In the future we will have better processes, and better ways of letting AI do it's own checking/validation, but that's lagging right now.

It'll be interesting to see a society where there's a big negative incentive to actually sitting down and understanding how things work, in the name of efficiency.

I've already noticed I'm getting lazy, because of AI, and other developer friends say they are also. I'd rather explain to an AI what I want done, instead of actually writing the code, just because it's easier to explain it than do it.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#142

Post by ay »

jstummbillig wrote: post #121
ay wrote: post #115

Very 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.

Could totally be the case, that, as I wrote in the very first sentence, I am holding it wrong.

But I am not saying LLMs are impotent - the other week Claude happily churned me ~3500 lines of C code that allowed to implement a prototype capture facility for network packets with flexible filters and saving the contents into pcapng files. I had to fix a couple of bugs that it made, but overall it was certainly at least 5x-10x productivity improvement compared to me typing these lines of code by hand. I don’t dispute that it’s a pretty useful tool in coding, or as a thinking assistant (see the last paragraph of my comment).

What I challenged is the submissive self deprecating adoration across the entire spectrum.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#143

Post by MoonGhost »

taylorallred wrote: post #4

Among the many ways that AI causes me existential angst, you've reminded me of another one. That is, the fact that AI pushes you towards the most average thoughts. It makes sense, given the technology. This scares me because creative thought happens at the very edge. When you get stuck on a problem, like you mentioned, you're on the cusp of something novel that will at the very least grow you as a person. The temptat…

> AI pushes you towards

That's interesting point. But here is the thing: you are supposed to drive. Not AI god. Look at it as at an assistant whom you can interrupt, instruct, correct, ask to redo. While focusing on 'what' you can delegate it some 'how' problems.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#144

Post by xigency »

steamrolled wrote: post #137

I 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…

Humans are social creatures. The existence of a tool that can replace humans is not nearly so depressing as the realization that a loud and powerful group of people are zealous and joyful to use it to such ends. The assumption that people come first is rapidly becoming a logical fallacy in a world that seeks to optimize paperclips first.

Anyway, the pendulum will swing the other way eventually, but it's a rough ride hanging on until then.

Glad to see stimulating discussion here falling on both sides.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#145

Post by computerthings »

xivzgrev wrote: post #69

in life and with people I think about a car, knowing when to go and when to stop some people are all go and no stop. we call them impulsive. some people may LOOK all go but have wisdom (or luck) behind the scenes putting the brakes on. Example: Tom Cruise does his own stunts, and must have a good sense for how to make it safe enough What this author touches on is a chief concern with AI. In the name of removing life…

[dead]

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#146

Post by hammock »

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…

> I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them.

What does that mean, I’m curious?

The schools and university I grew up in had a “single-sanction honor code” which meant if you were caught lying or cheating even once you would be expelled. And you signed the honor code at the top of every test.

My more progressive friends at other schools who didn’t have an honor code happily poo-pooed it as a repugnantly harsh old fashioned standard. But I don’t see a better way today of enforcing “don’t use AI” in schools, than it.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#147

Post by don_neufeld »

avaika wrote: post #110
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…

This reminds me how back in my school days I was not allowed to use the internet to prepare research on some random topics (e g. history essay). It was the late 90s when the internet started to spread. Anyway teachers forced us to use offline libraries only. Later in the university I was studying engineering. And we were forced to prepare all the technical drawings manually in the first year of study. Like literally…

I was expecting some response like this, because schools have “banned” things in the past.

While this is superficially similar, I believe we are talking about substantially different things.

Learning (the goal) is a process. In the case of an assignment, the resulting answer / work product, while it is what is requested, is critically not the goal. However, it is what is evaluated, so many confuse it with the goal (“I want to get a good grade”)

Anything which bypasses the process makes the goal (learning) less likely to be achieved.

So, I think it is fine to use a calculator to accelerate your use of operations you have already learned and understand.

However, I don’t think you should give 3rd graders calculators that just give them the answer to a multiplication or division when they are learning how those things work in the first place.

Similarly, I think it’s fine to do research using the internet to read sources you use to create your own work.

Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s fine to do research using the internet to find a site where you can buy a paper you can submit as your own work.

Right now, LLMs can be used to bypass a great deal of process, which is why I support them not being used.

It’s possible, maybe even likely that we’ll end up with a “supervised learning by AI” approach where the assignment is replaced by “proof of process”, a record of how the student explored the topic interactively. I could see that working if done right.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#148

Post by dvrp »

This is a byproduct of abundance.

In this case, abundance of cognitive ability.

We say that our food sucks. Yet, our elite athletes would crush Hercules or other God-like figures from our mythology. At the same time, we suffer from obesity.

The answer to the paradox comes from abundance. I don’t know why it happens, but I’ve noticed it on food, information retrieval, and now cognitive capacity.

Think about what happened to our capacity to search information on books. Librarians are masters of organizing chaos and filtering through information. But most of us don’t know a tiny fraction of their knowledge because we grew up with Google.

My hope is that, just like eating healthy is not as pleasurable as processed sugars but it’s necessary for a fit life, we will need to go through the process of thinking healthy even though is not as pleasurable as tinkering with LLM prompts.

This doesn’t mean escapism however. Modern athletes take advantage of the industrial world too, but they’re smart about it. I don’t think thinking will be much different.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#149

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

jackphilson wrote: post #139
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

to be trite, we've been promised a world where AI will help to alleviate the menial necessities so that we're free to pursue our passions. in reality, what we're getting is AI that replaces the human component of passion projects (art, music, engineering as craft), leaving the "actually-hard-to-replace" "low-class" roles (cashiering, trash collection, housekeeping, farming, etc) to humans who generally have few other economic options.

without a dramatic shift in wealth distribution (no less than the elimination of private wealth and the profit motive), we can't have a post-scarcity society. capitalism depends entirely upon scarcity, artificial or not.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#150

Post by wuj »

A good analogy is lifting. We lift to build strength, not because we need that extra strength to lift things in real life. There are plenty machinery to do that for us. But we do so for the sense of accomplishment of hitting our goals when we least expect it, seeing physical changes, and the feeling that we are getting healthier rather than chasing the utility benefits. If we perceive lifting as an utility, we realize its futile and meaningless. Instead, if we see it as a routine with positive externalities sprinkled on top, we feel a lot less pressured to do so.

As kelseyfrog commented already, the key is to focus on the action, not the target. Lifting is not just about hitting a number or getting bigger muscles (though they are great extrinsic motivators), its more of an action that we derive growth from. I have internalized the act of working out that those targets are baked into the unconscious. I don't overthink when I'm lifting. My unconscious take the lead, and I just follow. I enjoy seeing the results show up unexpectedly. It lets me grow without feeling the constant pressure of my conscious mind.

The lifting analogy can be applied to writing and other effortful pursuits. We write for the pleasure of reconciling internal conflicts and restoring order to our chaotic mind. Writing is the lifting of our mind. If we do it for comparison, then there's no point in lifting, or writing, or many other things we do after all our technological breakthroughs. Doing what we do is a means to an end, not the other way around.

Post reply on HN