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

281–290 of 512 posts

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

#281

Post by quietbritishjim »

zerobees wrote: post #235
jvanderbot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exoskeleton is such an obvious metaphor for AI (at least, one potential ways of using it) that surely no one, human or AI, could possibly claim credit for it.

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

#282

Post by Tubelord »

obscurette wrote: post #274
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…

> calculators didn't make us dumber I think that most of people misunderstand what calculator changed. Calculator didn't replace people doing math, calculator replaced mathematical tables, slide rulers and other already existing devices. And regarding making people dumber ... Math teachers who saw this change said that there was a clear shift – students started to think less critically. With slide rulers and tables y…

You still have to think about significant figures with calculators I used. Most will produce an irrational number result with as many insignificant digits that will fit on the display.

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

#283

Post by solumunus »

zazuke wrote: post #278

I think so, thinking is like training a muscle, if you don't do it often, you don't get to do so. But it's not as black and white, because there are different use cases where it makes total sense to use, and when it doesn't. I collected opinions from writers and developers over the years and share why I'm pro writing text manually. https://www.ssp.sh/brain/will-ai-replace-humans/

It feels to me like I’m still thinking a lot, but more efficiently. My goal isn’t to write code, it’s to translate business requirements and to architect solutions while balancing trade offs. I’m putting an equal amount of thought into that, but I’ve offloaded a lot of lower value thinking. Am I missing something?

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

#284

Post by brainwad »

pton_xd wrote: post #224
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.

> A novel is a bunch of words > What's valuable in a novel (or a poem) is in the words. Even if the words are a lie? Misleading? False? I'm not even talking about LLMs. What if it's propaganda designed to influence your thinking, possibly against your own interests; are those still valuable words that you'd cherish reading? My point is that the source matters, intent matters, and authenticity matters. To me, anyway.

Most (all?) good novels are propaganda designed to influence your thinking.

If a machine could truly provoke thoughts as well as a human author, then yeah it'd be worth reading its work, too.

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

#286

Post by ClikeX »

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…

The thing with calculator argument that always gets me. I do math unconsciously all the time. Even something as simple as adjusting a recipe when cooking. I don't need to grab a device to do that, I just do the quick math in my head. And the only way I can do that is because I learned how to do math. And even with a calculator, I still needed to know what to calculate. The argument "we don't need math, we have a calculator" assumes you always get a textbook question that lays it out for you.

Same goes for LLMs. I can use them for programming, and they're very convenient. But I still need to know what to ask it and make sure it stays within the confines of what I want. And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe.

Naturally, this assumes a workflow where you do actually look and modify the output yourself. But I'd argue that any non tech person is inevitably going to hit a wall where they can't debug themselves out of without getting a human involved.

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

#287

Post by iN7h33nD »

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…

Reminds me of Daemon by Daniel Suarez. I could plausibly see us heading there for sure https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/6665847-daemon

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

#288

Post by hackitup7 »

I'm offloading tons of my thinking to AI, and I don't like what it's doing to me. I think that I'm having trouble creating things on my own due to it, and tbh it's making me increasingly uncomfortable. I'm not even sure what to do because quitting AI also seems crazy, but it all seems like a bad trend not unlike social media.

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

#289

Post by Jyaif »

zloy88 wrote: post #24
Jyaif wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build stuff with AI it's different. It's very tempting to defer many (too many?) decisions to AI.

I do daily. So far I am doing fine, not sure what exactly your point is, sorry.

For one, as of today SOTA LLMs sometimes take the wrong decisions

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

#290

Post by pixl97 »

ericfr11 wrote: post #185
ElProlactin wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>But the AI would not be able to perform live on a stage

The vast majority of music consumption is by people that have never seen the artist live. Hell, I have no idea myself if there is a human behind it.

>what gives the right and permission for humans to exist anymore?

Nothing. We are just a mote in incomprehensibly small fraction of eternity. Eventually the process of equalizing entropy will erase all traces of our existence. Enjoy it while you have it.

Post reply on HN