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

301–310 of 512 posts

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

#301

Post by ClikeX »

abalashov wrote: post #291
ClikeX wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 calc…

Underrated and paradoxical element of this, to which, as far as I can tell, LLM boosters offer no solution: > And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs…

> I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs effectively.

For sure, and I've tried picking up a new language with the use of LLMs, but the concepts just don't stick because I don't actually do the work. That's why I do try to limit my use of LLMs to fields I'm already closely familiar with, and also keep its output contained to actually reviewable chunks. Or things that are just tedious, like OCR and large text transformations.

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

#302

Post by idiotsecant »

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?

Of course I have. What a weird question. If someone learned algebra would you ask them if they can do algebra without their teacher there?

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

#303

Post by JimsonYang »

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…

> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share

But the market doesnt reward that. Different consumers different markets, but (using a salad analogy) overall consumers dont care how a salad is made, only whether it tastes good and is cheap

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

#304

Post by pixl97 »

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?

Actually yes, I've used an LLM to make a better old fashioned (whisky based drink). Turns out skimping on the orange oil/zest makes a huge difference. And, no now that I've learned it I don't expect I'll have to go back for this express need.

This is where LLMs and even things like youtube videos muddle the difference between what you are and things you have to do as a human. The number of things you can be presented with in the modern world that you'd like, or have to do, is simply endless. If it's something small, with little opportunity cost if failure occurs, then just going to an LLM for an answer doesn't bother me. Now if it's something that's more costly like DIY remodeling an LLM isn't a primary driver, but in as a device that can push back when I ask about mistakes that can be made and what to watch out for.

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

#305

Post by pixl97 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #208
budsniffer952 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Gatekeeping" is a derogatory way of saying "maintaining standards of quality", usually by those who stand to benefit from lowered standards. I heartily approve of "gatekeeping" because I like having competent co-workers.

Both sides have validity.

I don't want some random joe smoking crack working on my aircraft before I fly.

At the same time I don't want to have to pay a light bulb changer after filing 6 safety forms in triplicate.

Extremism on both sides leads to suboptimal outcomes.

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

#306

Post by srdjanr »

gretch wrote: post #273
pibaker wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we actually have any measurements of if AI helps you learn something better? Because it is one thing to feel like you have learned something and another thing to have actually learned it well enough to put it in use. There are so many YouTube tutorials on all kinds of subject that will make you feel like an expert in the field after watching, and then you start doing the thing they have supposedly taught you and y…

> Do we actually have any measurements of if AI helps you learn something better? To me this is intuitively true based on anecdata. 2 examples 1) learning spanish - when I hear or read a phrase I don't know, I type it into the LLM and I learn a new word/phrase. Sure, I could have cracked open a spanish language dictionary, but tbh, I wasn't going to do that. Not to mention that dictionaries are translating word by wo…

I also have one anecdote - I (think) I understood basics of quantum mechanics intuitively for the first time. Of course it's probably superficial and maybe not 100% correct, but it is better than every time I tried to understand it before.

It definitely wasn't a single prompt, but two hours of back and forth, with a lot of time spent thinking (me, not LLM) in between. There were multiple times where I misunderstood something, so if I just read a book I'd probably get stuck many times.

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

#307

Post by hintymad »

If we look at how AI solves those Erdos problems or IMO problems, we can see a clear pattern: AI is like a perfect cramming human being: it has seen and memorized pretty much all the known problem sets and the solution patterns. It knows all the areas of maths - a feat that even the best mathematicians in the world can achieve. So AI can link an obscure solved problem in one area to a hard problem in another, leading to amazing new solutions[1].

I think we can use AI similarly: asking AI for ideas that we haven't thought of before, and asking AI to connect the dots in new ways. To do these two effectively, though, we will need deep conceptual understanding of what we work on, and strong intuition to further refine the answers given by the AI.

That is, we don't offload our thinking. We just augment it with AI. It's like playing the game of ABC: given a letter, and name all the movies starting with it. One can be very familiar the movies but still fail to recall most of the titles. AI can exactly help with that type of recall.

[1] That's why OpenAI's model could solve the hardest problem (problem 6?) in 2025's IOI, but failed to solve the easiest one for human (problem 3?).

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

#308

Post by rescbr »

dakolli wrote: post #298
gretch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we actually have any measurements of if AI helps you learn something better? To me this is intuitively true based on anecdata. 2 examples 1) learning spanish - when I hear or read a phrase I don't know, I type it into the LLM and I learn a new word/phrase. Sure, I could have cracked open a spanish language dictionary, but tbh, I wasn't going to do that. Not to mention that dictionaries are translating word by wo…

Do you retain that information? Or are you just constantly relying on having access to an llm to re-look things up. The amount of information I retain when using llms to learn is far less than other methods, not sure why, you'd think it would be just as effective as reading a book, but it's definitely not. Probably for the same reason that learning math and always using a calculator does not make you great at math. I…

For me it depends, if I simply take the answer from the LLM it goes straight into the shortest memory neurons my brain has.

Now, if I go back and forth with the LLM to say, taking the language learning example, to explore the etymology of the word (which for me is far more interesting than the translation itself), then I learn a ton more.

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

#309

Post by srdjanr »

dakolli wrote: post #298
gretch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we actually have any measurements of if AI helps you learn something better? To me this is intuitively true based on anecdata. 2 examples 1) learning spanish - when I hear or read a phrase I don't know, I type it into the LLM and I learn a new word/phrase. Sure, I could have cracked open a spanish language dictionary, but tbh, I wasn't going to do that. Not to mention that dictionaries are translating word by wo…

Do you retain that information? Or are you just constantly relying on having access to an llm to re-look things up. The amount of information I retain when using llms to learn is far less than other methods, not sure why, you'd think it would be just as effective as reading a book, but it's definitely not. Probably for the same reason that learning math and always using a calculator does not make you great at math. I…

I think it depends on how much time you spend learning something and "engaging" with LLM.

I have many times asked it something I was slightly curious about, got the answer after the first or 2nd-3rd prompt, spent 3 minutes in total and forgot it after 15 minutes probably.

But a few times I've spent an hour or more on a topic, asking many questions, thinking between responses, and I actually learned something.

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

#310

Post by abalashov »

ClikeX wrote: post #301
abalashov wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underrated and paradoxical element of this, to which, as far as I can tell, LLM boosters offer no solution: > And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs…

> I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs effectively. For sure, and I've tried picking up a new language with the use of LLMs, but the concepts just don't stick because I don't actually do the work. That's why I do try to limit my use of…

> the concepts just don't stick because I don't actually do the work

Yes! And this is the part of the de-skilling puzzle that is completely unaddressed by AI boosters.

Maybe LLMs are a force multiplier, but there still has to be some force to multiply, and I don't think a lot of folks ask the question of how that force is actually cultivated. This nebulous, airy-fairy notion that humans add "architecture" or "taste" doesn't tell the story of how, concretely, they came to have it. It seems to me there is no escaping that it came from typing the code.

Like you, I have a much better grasp of code and API surfaces I've physically typed than things LLMs have emitted and I have reviewed, in a conceptual sense, but which I could not have typed myself then, nor can type now.

Post reply on HN