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

331–340 of 512 posts

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

#331

Post by Terr_ »

Aurornis wrote: post #128
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? We had some contractors at the house doing some work. The contractors had been doing this work for a long time. I could tell they were good at what they did because I had some experience with that type of work when I…

I find it helpful to investigate "I did it with an LLM" by imagining that (perhaps without the user's knowledge) the other end was another human, and asking whether that ought to change the answer.

This quickly engages a lot of social circuitry we've already developed when it comes to questions of what constitutes the user truly learning and having skills, what is meritorious, and who deserves most of the credit.

For example:

* If the spell-checker for your paper was secretly another human, that wouldn't become cheating. (Ditto for a calculator.)

* If you prompt "write an introductory paragraph" for a paper and it was actually a human ghostwriter, you'd obviously be cheating.

* If an executive prompts "write a congratulatory e-mail for me" to an LLM, it's not worse than asking a human secretary to do it.

* If you say "I learned kung-fu" while hiring a [robot/human] to kick the spine out of your opponent, you're a liar either way.

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

#332

Post by garciasn »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #281
zerobees wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had been explaining it to others as 'My Iron Man suit' before reading the exoskeleton essay, months later. So, you are definitely correct.

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

#333

Post by bluefirebrand »

idiotsecant wrote: post #302
bluefirebrand wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If someone was studying under a teacher that had a reputation of stepping in and doing the work for them, yes I absolutely would

And AI has that reputation!

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

#334

Post by im3w1l »

ben_w wrote: post #215
sebastiennight wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'll be like playing chess against someone you know is using a specific version of Stockfish: even though it would beat you if you tried to fight the system unaided, you can win by asking your own copy of the AI to go one step further ahead, and it will be accurate precisely because it's playing against itself and reacting to its own moves. I don't believe this is how chess works, and I don't believe this is how S…

I didn't say "the next version of Stockfish". You have Stockfish version n, see board state s. I have Stockfish version n, see board state s. I want to know what you're about to do, so I put Stockfish into state s, ask it what the best move is, and I know you'll make that move because I know you'll ask Stockfish version n the same question of the same state. I now know board state s+1. The steps are not pre-programme…

Your whole strategy basically involves having more compute than the other guy so you can look one step further. And yeah in an AI world having more compute or some exclusive data seem like obvious ways to get a leg up.

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

#335

Post by VBprogrammer »

wincy wrote: post #198
parl_match wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. I want to support that I'd extend on this as well: the process of creating changes you. In a technical sense, where you approach a problem and the way you solve that problem informs you. Both your problem solving skills, creative skills, but also even understanding how a compromise works. This is why…

I use AI to make songs and pictures for my friends. I barely even listen to music that I didn’t have a hand in making. It’s my favorite genre by far. My kids too. Personalized studio quality songs all day, every day. I suddenly have the power and time to make things I enjoy. I think there’s going to be a hollowing out that’s going to happen where we might not have another Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift or famous mus…

I think for many people, maybe even most people, the story and the people behind the music is every bit as important as the music itself. I don't see how an AI can capture this.

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

#336

Post by evolve-maz »

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've been a manager for some years. Without sounding too up myself, what made me good at management was the fact that I knew how to do the things I asked people to do. It allowed me to critically evaluate the work, set realistic timelines, and champion the contributions up the chain. I also maintained the ability to perform this work (by design and happenstance sometimes, since we could be understaffed due to sickness etc).

The good managers I saw also had this ability. The managers I didn't enjoy working with / saw struggle were ones who either never had that ability, or had lost it a long time ago.

Note I'm speaking about line management. There's a world of difference between managing a dozen or so individual contributors vs managing senior managers / directors. However, managing LLMs is analogous to line management.

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

#337

Post by wcedmisten »

planb wrote: post #252
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…

I’m not sure it’s so simple. I went on a trip with friends this weekend and cut a video from all the short clips we filmed on our phones. Before AI I would have used some song from my music library as the background tune. This time I created a song with Suno that fits the clips and includes some funny anecdotes from our vacation. If I was very talented and had the time, I could have written the lyrics and recorded th…

I don't get how people can listen to and share AI generated "music" and not feel legitimately embarrassed to their core. Like the AI Charlie Kirk song, but unironically. I'm truly baffled how anyone can enjoy it.

> If I was very talented and had the time, I could have written the lyrics and recorded the song myself (which undoubtedly would be even more awesome), but I can’t do this.

I promise you that any art you produced would be better than slop. There is not a single crayon scribble or off-tune melody that would be worse than the generic garbage that comes out of an AI model

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

#339

Post by voncheese »

evolve-maz wrote: post #336
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've been a manager for some years. Without sounding too up myself, what made me good at management was the fact that I knew how to do the things I asked people to do. It allowed me to critically evaluate the work, set realistic timelines, and champion the contributions up the chain. I also maintained the ability to perform this work (by design and happenstance sometimes, since we could be understaffed due to sicknes…

> There's a world of difference between managing a dozen or so individual contributors vs managing senior managers / directors.

I agree, but in my opinion, your point about needing to know how things work still holds. It's less relevant as you move up to managing managers and larger orgs, but it never goes to zero if you're going to be successful.

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

#340

Post by beepbooptheory »

jvanderbot wrote: post #266
beepbooptheory wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a nice, Borgesian, charm to it but I feel like it's premise is confused. If it's just about the here near-empty signifier of "happiness," what does the magic tech of the earring actually contribute to the parable that some hypothetically perfect narcotic wouldn't?

The earring doesn't make you feel better, it actually produces a better result. It's never wrong. You might regret addiction, for example? Also, it's a parable. Take it too literally and it loses its charm.

> It always tells you what will make you happiest. If it would make you happiest to succeed at your work, it will tell you how best to complete it. If it would make you happiest to do a half-assed job at your work and then go home and spend the rest of the day in bed having vague sexual fantasies, the earring will tell you to do that. The earring is never wrong.

It just has to be this in the story because it doesn't want to engage with why what the earring indicates is so good except that it provides unfailable "happiness". It implies a static world where "the right decision" always exists, but doesn't want to engage with the details. It also implies a kind of akrasia[1] that I don't think resonates with lived experience: "happiness" is a state we pass in and out of, not the accumulation of correct decisions. We undergo unhappiness for the sake of future happiness. "Happiness" is a questionable end-all goal first of all, but either way not even the kind of thing ontologically compatible with the author's framing.

It just feels half-baked, it doesn't actually say anything even when it has all the pretenses of that. Maybe that's too harsh though.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia

Post reply on HN