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

Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

artfish.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 512 posts

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#71

Post by latexr »

dentm42 wrote: post #31

The question presumes that most of us are "thinking" in the first place, when in actuality, most of us are just acting according to the patterns that have emerged from our encounters with the thoughts of others. We generally adopt them and/or try to hallucinate coherence when they conflict. Very few people actually "think". It's hard work and takes time. We neither have (take) the time nor are we particularly motivat…

> and/or try to hallucinate coherence

It’s bad enough for rational reasoned discourse that we anthropomorphise LLMs, let’s please not then feed those words back into human discourse, further diluting their meaning. No one “hallucinates coherence”, hallucinations are by definition a perception which does not match reality.

> AI is simply an extension of

It may be an extension, but not “simply” as it also creates the problem where it didn’t exist. I’ve seen several reports (both on and offline) of people who used to engage in deep thinking (I’m talking scientists, postgrads, PhDs working at the edge of what we know) now worrying they are losing their ability to properly think due to their LLM use.

> It just does it faster and uses a hulluva lot more energy.

I hope we can agree that’s bad and that we should try to stop and even reverse it, not simply shrug our shoulders and go “ah well, we were already going to shit anyway, might as well fuck everything up faster”.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#72

Post by therobots927 »

ofjcihen wrote: post #2

I know that the common refrain is “think of yourself as a manager now” but I’ve actually taken the opposite approach and have been telling anyone I train the same. Diving deeper into technical understanding makes more sense to me at this point both as a way to make yourself more useful in the age of AI and also to use AI more effectively. I regularly tell the kids to grab a text book on a subject that interests them…

I couldn’t agree more. It seems AI is very good at middle of the distribution tasks where it has access to a lot of training data - enough to be highly reliable at that task.

Which means as a human your only added value is on the edge of the distribution. Which means you need to be learning and doing more complex, deep topics.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#73

Post by nurettin »

ofjcihen wrote: post #2

I know that the common refrain is “think of yourself as a manager now” but I’ve actually taken the opposite approach and have been telling anyone I train the same. Diving deeper into technical understanding makes more sense to me at this point both as a way to make yourself more useful in the age of AI and also to use AI more effectively. I regularly tell the kids to grab a text book on a subject that interests them…

Are you really diving into technicals just by asking "sooo what did you do?" to your AI? Without document crawling, debugging and pulling your hair out, how much of it is really a deep dive? I feel like all that effort that goes into generating a mental image from bits and pieces is gone. I'm just grudgingly happy I went through all that before humanity retired.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#74

Post by demosthanos »

ofjcihen wrote: post #2

I know that the common refrain is “think of yourself as a manager now” but I’ve actually taken the opposite approach and have been telling anyone I train the same. Diving deeper into technical understanding makes more sense to me at this point both as a way to make yourself more useful in the age of AI and also to use AI more effectively. I regularly tell the kids to grab a text book on a subject that interests them…

I wonder if it'd be more effective to teach how to critically use AI than to try to forward people to textbooks.

For myself, I have found that I am better able to learn new topics than ever before because being able to have a conversation with a moderately competent but sometimes catastrophically wrong AI about any new subject is actually the perfect mix of helpful and unhelpful for learning.

I use a loop along these lines:

* Ask a question * Get an answer * Be skeptical of the answer * Investigate/reason about the answer * Critique the answer * Rinse and repeat

This kind of loop is far more useful to me than any textbook ever has been, because a textbook just drips information into my head. It's more likely to be accurate, but not guaranteed, and it doesn't encourage me to actually engage with the material in the way that a wrong AI answer does.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#76

Post by jvanderbot »

zerobees wrote: post #40

I don't know if this is a good framing. "Too much" is subjective, and every heavy AI user will assert that they're just unlocking their potential, that calculators didn't make us dumber, etc. But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? We have people here who use LLMs to raise t…

Have you read the "Whispering earring" essay? I love it for the LLM era.[1]

You can treat AI as a whispering earring - "What should we do now? How do we fix this? What do you think?" Or you can treat it like an exoskelton - "Implement kd-tree with metric space xyz for this problem, mapping this to that blah blah".

That's pre-thought execution automation that makes review much simpler - you already know the shape of the desired output. The whispering earring is atrophy.

1. https://croissanthology.com/earring

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#77

Post by sgarman »

nsxwolf wrote: post #8

Having a very dangerous AI standoff at work, where people are debating wether or not to use a particular connection pooling / threading strategy to fix a production issue, and everyone is unqualified to answer and is instead arguing what their agent said. They are just straight up admitting they don't know anything, and advocate fiercely for their agent's recommendation. No one cares, no one tries to stop this behavi…

Not an AI defender but this doesn't sound all that different than before where people were just arguing for their understanding of the issue. No one knows everything and has perfect alignment with reality. I'm with the other guy who responded, test it, else y'all just guessing and arguing who's better at guessing.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#78

Post by jdw64 »

I don't think AI causes people to stop thinking. Rather, I think it biases people toward doing what they want to do more, and that bias is what becomes problematic.

In fact, when I use AI, I don't really use it for the things I actually enjoy doing. For example, I like making UI animations, and I don't use AI for that. I also don't use AI when I'm playing games I enjoy. But when I have to make something tedious like a login screen, I use AI. And after I write the code, I just throw the entire codebase at AI to write the documentation.

The problem is that this only lets me think about things I have a taste for.

Having taste and diving deep into it is good. Immersion is great. But on the flip side, you also need to do things that aren't your taste. That's more cognitively healthy. AI prevents that.

In that sense, I think AI's strength is that it creates an environment where you can dive deeper into the areas you like.

But the real question becomes how you use the cognitive surplus that's left after offloading tasks to AI.

I visit Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and USA sites, and honestly, most people, including myself, only have deep thinking about certain topics. Outside of those, we just follow the prevailing opinion.

So I'm not really sure. I don't think using AI makes me stop thinking. I just think it creates a bias that makes my thinking only focus on the parts I want to focus on.

Re: Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

#80

Post by slibhb »

zerobees wrote: post #40

I don't know if this is a good framing. "Too much" is subjective, and every heavy AI user will assert that they're just unlocking their potential, that calculators didn't make us dumber, etc. But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? We have people here who use LLMs to raise t…

> In my mind, it's pretty simple: I'm a human, LLMs are not. If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more.

While I appreciate you laying it out so plainly, I disagree. A novel is a bunch of words and I don't care if they were written by one person, five, an AI, or infinite monkeys on typewriters. What's valuable in a novel (or a poem) is in the words.

Post reply on HN