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

181–190 of 512 posts

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

#181

Post by budsniffer952 »

elmer2 wrote: post #105
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…

"Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again?" Many of the LLM maximalists I know don't have the skills or knowledge to excel in technology and need to use LLMs to do their job. It's seen as a cheat code to get work done. As an example, A person I went to high sc…

This is the classic gatekeeping our industry loves:

"This guy couldn't do a thing we found easy, now he can! Boooo!"

Yes, I can now set up a Drupal website in a few hours. That is great for me.

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

#182

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

slibhb wrote: post #80
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.

LLMs are inherently backward looking; their training corpus consists of existing works and their ability to extrapolate is ultimately constrained by that corpus. However powerful their proponents claim them to be, they aren't powerful enough to predict the evolution of human society and culture as a whole.

Changes to that corpus that reflect the real world are going to come from incorporating future works created by humans. (LLM generated training data can reinforce fidelity to the current corpus but don't alter it.) The future still belongs to human creativity.

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

#183

Post by budsniffer952 »

MisterTea wrote: post #120
elmer2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again?" Many of the LLM maximalists I know don't have the skills or knowledge to excel in technology and need to use LLMs to do their job. It's seen as a cheat code to get work done. As an example, A person I went to high sc…

> At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI. So what if its indistinguishable - its not a product of human intellect or effort. I feel there is a large disconnect where people look at artful output such as music or writing as a thing no different than a box of paper clips. To them, "It's just there." They don't care how it got there, t…

>That's fast food thinking

You're simply drawing the line where it suits you.

I don't consider it pure human coding if you use anything but Notepad.

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

#184

Post by jstummbillig »

I have no idea what people are doing. I am thinking more about harder problems than ever before.

It goes like: "Here is this thing I wonder about", and the LLM is like "Yeah sure, consider these things that are super related to what you are doing, that you probably know nothing about yet (but you know... if you are interested...)".

And that goes in any direction, for any depth. Anything that is made trivial now, is just replaced by something more consequential a level or two higher. You can just get much better at things that matter more.

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

#185

Post by ericfr11 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #154
MisterTea wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI. So what if its indistinguishable - its not a product of human intellect or effort. I feel there is a large disconnect where people look at artful output such as music or writing as a thing no different than a box of paper clips. To them, "It's just there." They don't care how it got there, t…

If you knew how the modern music industry and local diners work, you might not be so impressed. It's not all artisanal, made with love goodness just because human hands did it.

But the AI would not be able to perform live on a stage, producing emotions. I can't imagine staying 3 hours in a crowded room looking at a robot or a computer screen, even if it produces great music. Or if we get to that point, what gives the right and permission for humans to exist anymore?

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

#186

Post by Izkata »

helterskelter wrote: post #17
AnEro wrote: post #6

When I use a calculator, I atleast try to get with in a few digits of what I think the anwser is in my head. Mostly since when I was younger I had a very passionate teacher about how much slower everyone is now because of calculators on simple math. I just apply the same thing with LLMs, just try and think of how and what I would have said and see how close I was. Only thing I change is I don't trust the anwsers and…

OT, but if we made kids learning math use log tables and slide rules for all their calculations I expect that they would engage their brains more and actually think about what they were doing, ie: form a strategy to solve a problem before they started calculating. Also I think that they would get a better "feel" for working numbers in general. I have no evidence, but I suspect that by abstracting away a lot of the "g…

> Also I think that they would get a better "feel" for working numbers in general.

This is called "number sense". I'm pretty sure we do have evidence under searches for that term, it was well-enough known as a concept when I was in school decades ago and is the reason we don't use calculators when first learning math.

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

#187

Post by zer00eyz »

specproc wrote: post #148

I am increasingly finding my consulting work to be orientated around clearing up after people who outsourced their thinking to AI. I'm seeing some incredibly dumb stuff: researchers spending months on Claude trying to do insane deduplication, unrelated to their research question, using regex; whole research methodologies YOLO'd out of ChatGPT. The results invariably chaotic, resulting in huge amounts of stress and wa…

> The lack of critical thinking I'm seeing in some of these projects is horrific.

Yesterday I noted in another comment that I am having lots of Lawyers and Writers ask me pointed questions about "docker" and "agents" that make them sound more like JR engineers.

It's two groups of people who, as a profession, spend a large amount of time reviewing their own work and the work of others with a critical eye. Writers edit, Lawyers review evidence and every bit of content that their oppositions produces. Both groups (when doing their job well) aren't just critically thinking, they are being diligent and dedicated.

Lots of people are treating LLM's like an oracle (technical ones as well). Because our culture values moving bricks faster, with out taking into account if they are going to the right place, or even if they are the right bricks. (See: https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frank... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_motion_study for why "bricks" matter).

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

#188

Post by raincole »

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…

> So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote

Why not? You're implying writing good prompts doesn't require effort or thought, which is false to me.

> Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again?

To write better prompt is a good reason to learn new things. It's so obvious that more knowledge and experience you have, the better results you get from LLMs.

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

#189

Post by hoppp »

budsniffer952 wrote: post #183
MisterTea wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI. So what if its indistinguishable - its not a product of human intellect or effort. I feel there is a large disconnect where people look at artful output such as music or writing as a thing no different than a box of paper clips. To them, "It's just there." They don't care how it got there, t…

> That's fast food thinking You're simply drawing the line where it suits you. I don't consider it pure human coding if you use anything but Notepad.

What about punch cards?

Real programmers write the code and throw it away after compilation. All the fixes happen in the binary. You are not a real programmer unless you debug hex dumps and add changes directly to the compiled program.

Text editor? No. You punch the program on cards and then wait 1 week to get your turn and get a compiler error.

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

#190

Post by budsniffer952 »

hoppp wrote: post #189
budsniffer952 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fast food thinking You're simply drawing the line where it suits you. I don't consider it pure human coding if you use anything but Notepad.

What about punch cards? Real programmers write the code and throw it away after compilation. All the fixes happen in the binary. You are not a real programmer unless you debug hex dumps and add changes directly to the compiled program. Text editor? No. You punch the program on cards and then wait 1 week to get your turn and get a compiler error.

Nope, I draw my line at Notepad!
Post reply on HN