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

231–240 of 512 posts

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

#231

Post by ex-aws-dude »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #217
idiotsecant wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're contributing anecdata I have used LLMs to tremendous effect to learn all kinds of interesting stuff because I like learning interesting stuff and LLMs can tailor the level of instruction to exactly where you're at and don't mind questions interrupting ever 6 seconds which is better than both textbooks and teachers, mostly.

Have you ever tried to do the thing you learned without the LLM holding your hand? Or are you just assuming you learned something because you made a finished product of some kind?

The question is does that even matter

You may argue what if LLMs are inaccessible but that’s like teachers saying “you won’t always have a calculator”

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

#232

Post by AyanamiKaine »

I believe its "too much" as soon as we trade procedural knowledge against declarative knowledge so much you can only remember the what and not be able to do the how anymore.

Knowing declarative you need to loop over elements and actually being able to write the for loop as procedural knowledge are two different shoes. I believe that this is the real danger.

Pilots have much automation in the cockpit but the pilot needs simulation hours actually flying not relying on the autopilot.

If you dont write code you will forget/loose much accuracy writing it, its just a matter of time.

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

#233

Post by beej71 »

horsawlarway wrote: post #104
slibhb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Generally speaking - I agree with you. Source bias is a real logical fallacy, and failing to evaluate the content itself, regardless of the source, is a problematic view of the world. In the same way that I don't need the lumber in my house "hand sawed" for it to achieve my goal of creating a habitable space. --- But more broadly, I do think there's space to at least question the use and role of AI. Because while con…

There's a road in California that is the last hand-built road made in the state. Nothing special about it, in particular (aside from the terrifying, exposed drop), otherwise.

But since I know the human history of the road, it _feels_ different when I'm on it than other machine-built roads.

It's the same in a hand-made house. Knowing the human labor gives the house a different vibe.

If we look at 10 paintings and one was painted by a human master artist, it becomes, to me, more impressive than the AI works, even if it isn't the award-winner.

These sentiments are incredibly subjective, of course. Some people simply feel no difference between a hand-made brick and a machine-made brick other than the latter is likely cheaper and of higher material quality.

But for those of us looking for the indescribable _soul_ of the work, we fail to find it in those produced by machine.

I just visited Lowell National Park and watched the mechanical looms in action. The cloth they produced was blandly soulless, like all the cloth we use and wear and discard. The loom itself, on the other hand, was a hand-built mechanical work of art, and felt amazingly _human_ by compassion.

This isn't something we tend to value in the US, though. The closest we get is people hanging their kids' childhood art on the walls and buying custom art at great expense to increase social standing. And a few support-your-indy-artist types.

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

#234

Post by jeromechoo »

jvanderbot wrote: post #76
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 t…

Wow what a read! Thanks for sharing. Really helped me unpack why I’m so bothered by people who c/p AI answers verbatim.

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

#235

Post by zerobees »

jvanderbot wrote: post #76
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 t…

It cracks me up that you bring up the exoskeleton metaphor, because I'm pretty sure it originated from a 100% AI-generated essay that made it to the top of HN a while back. So I guess, AI is whispering things into our ears whether we notice or not.

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

#237

Post by ForOldHack »

csh0 wrote: post #219
ben_w wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually, that becomes interesting. Before we get to that stage, I think we pass through (almost) everyone following almost the exact same advice as each other. Such people are extremely predictable. You may have already noticed, before LLMs, cliché? Talking points that make a group identifiable? Words and phrases that act as applause lights or cognitive stop signs? (That last sentence itself being a pair of cliché…

This is already underway. My dog often gets misidentified as a restricted breed. This used to make apartment hunting difficult because, occasionally, the property manager would visually ID the dog breed as banned, I’d have to go to the vet and get paperwork, potentially gene testing, arguing she wasn't, it was a whole thing. But, recently, the apartment I moved into had an online portal where I had to upload a photo…

I was anticipating that it would have reversed course and flagged you. Blessings on you, and your four footed friend.

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

#238

Post by slicktux »

bsoles wrote: post #203

I thought it was a myth until the junior developer on my own team responded with "I don't know" to a question about why he made a certain computation during a design review. Because the (wrong) computation was fully AI generated and he couldn't even tell the difference. Most people don't use AI to learn new stuff. They use it to do "the job" for them and they don't even understand the result. What is the point of a p…

One of the most important things for any profession is experience. Experience comes from learning from your own mistakes or those of others. Those with the best skills can be said to have learned a lot from previous mistakes.

So, how can someone become professional if they don’t learn from their own mistakes? In the case of AI; they will learn to become professional prompters and learn from the mistakes of bad prompts??? I prefer the former not the ladder.

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

#239

Post by mycocola »

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…

> Very few people actually "think".

Unknowable. And a callous notion.

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

#240

Post by nicbou »

Izkata wrote: post #168
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…

> But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. Except calculators have been a problem for decades, it's why they're not allowed in school when you're still learning. Without doing the math yourself and internalizing how it works, you won't develop the number sense to tell if the result makes sense (broken calculator, typo, wrong equation, etc). I still…

We had exams where the calculator was allowed, because we were tested on our ability to type in the right calculations. The calculator wouldn't save you.
Post reply on HN