Live data from Hacker News

Are we offloading too much of our thinking to AI?

artfish.ai

381–390 of 512 posts

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

#381

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.

> If you knew how the modern music industry and ...

This just assumes I'm listening to mainstream music or whatever when I mostly buy grungy metal and whatever else I enjoy off Bandcamp. Many times, directly supporting the artist.

> ... local diners work, you might not be so impressed.

I already stated the homemade gyro platter and they're mozzarella sticks w/sauce are slammin and they are proud of it. Sure it's business but they crafted some damn fine mozzarella sticks and they always come out crispy and oozing with hot but not roof melting cheese. That's giving a damn even if its slammin a few in the fryer then tossin em on a plate and sendin em into the human ether. I hope they stay around as they're a great Sunday afternoon lunch spot with friends.

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

#382
I guess it depends on your definition of "too much", but also on your definition of "thinking".

What I've found is that LLMs are excellent tools for:

- Spitting out white collar corporate speak that sounds plausible to other corporate speakers

- Hugely accelerating the process of going through academia which, except for a few specific cases, is essentially years of copy/pasting

- Writing code as long as such code as been written many times before

- Figuring out which one of the 10 ads and 12 misleading links in a web search is the one you're looking for

- Summarizing a book in ten paragraphs so you don't have to read it

...which turns out a lot of people defined as "thinking". I don't agree with that. But in either case, not "too much" is being offloaded: it's all of it.

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

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about access to resources and technologies, which is basically constantly rising, we couldn't stop that if we wanted to, so that's a given and more importantly orthogonal to the wealth that buys you goods and services. The latter is absolutely zero sum, because of everybody has a billion, a billion isn't that much any more. E.g. human trafficking exists because some people are rich and others are poor…

>You are talking about access to resources and technologies, which is basically constantly rising, we couldn't stop that if we wanted to We could very obviously stop our progress in resources and technology. It has happened throughout history many times and we see plenty of modern examples. You seem to be treating the accumulated products of civilization as though they are geological facts rather than fragile outputs…

> Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe that 1) access to resources and technology are "basically constantly rising"

Because people have and share ideas, and I was using that as a shorthand. Even if they aren't, if you completely strike that part -- my point remains completely untouched.

> why the relative difference in wealth today is more important than the (magical?) existence of a system were everyone has continually gotten more access to resources and technology

Because in the context of "Wealth is having economic power over the people around you.", that is the definition of wealth that is used. To quote a randomly picked one, emphasis mine:

"Large possessions; a comparative abundance of things"

> You are aware that the default state of humanity hasn't been one of continually increasing access to resources and technology?

There was no default "state", at least by the time you're talking about humans, we probably already learned from each other by observation. Sure, politics and wars and religion and feudal dynasties and whatever make bumps in the line, but generally it goes up. Once things get out, they're out, roughly speaking (that's the keyword here), and even in the animal kingdom.

And as I said, even if that's completely false, doesn't matter for the wider point about wealth, and that it can only buy you power over others if they have less of it.

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

#384
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 definitely retain it. In the case of the gardening - I pretty much immediately go outside and practice it.

In other words, how I get the info doesn’t matter (book, video, llm) because I’m locking in the skill by doing the thing in the garden.

And sometimes it is kinda wrong/suboptimal, but not more than e.g. asking a friend for gardening tips. Usually this is based on lack of context, like eg im growing cherry tomatoes and the AI assumed I had full size tomatoes

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

#385

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…

Except it's not really a mechsuit; inasmuch as it is, it's more like an Evangelion: it's got bits of people's souls floating around in there; it only works well with a high synch rate with the user, which is difficult to achieve consistently; and sometimes it pops off and does its own thing anyway.

And the way you achieve and maintain deep knowledge of the shape of the output you want is... well, to write and test it yourself. LLMs are a cognitohazard. If you aren't accustomed to programming without them (or even if you are) it's hard to see the line between using them to remove drudgery and relying on them to think for you.

The Whispering Earring story reminds me of that episode of Rick and Morty in which Morty gets a piece of crystal embedded in his forehead which allows him to perceive the moment of his death; he then begins steering his actions towards the future in which an elderly Jessica (his crush) tells him she loves him as he dies, down to individual articulated phonemes and muscle actions. In the end, it's revealed this future is not what Morty had hoped for.

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

#386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are talking about access to resources and technologies, which is basically constantly rising, we couldn't stop that if we wanted to We could very obviously stop our progress in resources and technology. It has happened throughout history many times and we see plenty of modern examples. You seem to be treating the accumulated products of civilization as though they are geological facts rather than fragile outputs…

> Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe that 1) access to resources and technology are "basically constantly rising" Because people have and share ideas, and I was using that as a shorthand. Even if they aren't, if you completely strike that part -- my point remains completely untouched. > why the relative difference in wealth today is more important than the (magical?) existence of a system were everyone has…

>There was no default "state", at least by the time you're talking about humans, we probably already learned from each other by observation. Sure, politics and wars and religion and feudal dynasties and whatever make bumps in the line, but generally it goes up.

No, that's not the shape of the line. You can view it here:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-average-gdp-per-ca...

The hockey stick upturn in recent centuries needs explanation.

I'm pushing back so hard on this comparative definition of wealth (which I notice is the secondary definition you found behind large possessions) because I think it's silly to do that when we have an unbelievably dramatic increase in wealth in recent centuries which needs understanding first.

Hand-waving away human progress and forcing zero sum definitions of wealth feels unserious. You have terms for things like inequality, why not use those instead of distorting what wealth means?

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

#387

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…

My take is that you learn math before learning how to use a calculator. And can understand what it does and reproduce it (slower) by hand if needed, but everyone is still using it for stuff we don't need to think about.

If you use AI exactly like this I find no issue, but I fear most people are using the calculator without knowing the math and that's the real issue to me.

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

#388
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…

I recently had the opportunity to help teach to almost graduate students, (even though I graduated only last year myself), and with the main teacher we made it a point to do a skim code review with ever single one of the 90 students, just me/the teacher, them, and their code on the computer screen.

I saw every category, the ones that used AI to learn and actually answered my questions and knew what it wrote, the ones that mostly didn't use AI and so knew what they wrote, and finally the ones that used AI to do the assignment instead of learning and always responded a variant of "I don't know".

I really like what the other teacher said to a student that admitted never reading their code:

"I'm not even scolding you, You're literally saying you are completely unnecessary here"

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

#389

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.

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

I'm drawing the line where the human effort is no longer there.

There was a similar argument against electronic music. No effort because no instrument is played. But the fact is the instrument just changed shape, drastically.

Like there's an artist I am sure a few here would be familiar with: Master Boot Record, a video game heavy metal electronic blend fully composed on a DAW. MBR live streams his composition sessions while chillin in his own irc channel he's hosting himself so you can chat with him. It's impressive to hear how he lays down notes, loops it, tweaks and expands it, then little by little builds a song passage by passage. Often with the irc channel reacting to the process itself and perhaps influencing the output. You know when it finally clicks and you're left feeling "Oh that was cool as fuck!" That's uniquely human, a life form that evolved over billions of years on a mud ball floating in a vast vacuum - at random. Talking, thinking, playing, laughing meat. Amazing huh?

An AI shitting out a similar pattern because it was trained on the same and similar patterns is not interesting or original. It's just a really good illusion from a well tuned stochastic parrot. It's interesting in the technical sense, but not in the artistic one. There was no creative process involved. Prompting is just a well formed set of instructions and questions which a human could understand - a spec. Nothing special there. It's like driving to McDonalds and ordering a quarter pounder with cheese meal. As a search engine, cool. As an artist, no thanks.

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

#390
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 prompt…

I think the calculator parallel is really on point.

You learn math before using a calculator to do the boring part.

You should learn code before using an AI to generate the boring part.

Even more so for LLMs because they are not deterministic like calculators.

Post reply on HN