Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#181

Post by fennecbutt »

abathologist wrote: post #159

I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen.

Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible.

Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#182

Post by perrygeo »

worldsayshi wrote: post #117
taylorallred wrote: post #4

Among the many ways that AI causes me existential angst, you've reminded me of another one. That is, the fact that AI pushes you towards the most average thoughts. It makes sense, given the technology. This scares me because creative thought happens at the very edge. When you get stuck on a problem, like you mentioned, you're on the cusp of something novel that will at the very least grow you as a person. The temptat…

I feel there's a glaring counter point to this. I have never felt more compelled to try out whatever coding idea that pops into my head. I can make Claude write a poc in seconds to make the idea more concrete. And I can write into a good enough tool in a few afternoons. Before this all those ideas would just never materialize. I mean I get the existential angst though. There's a lot of uncertainty about where all thi…

Good point. It's not that AI is "pushing us" towards anything. AI can be a muse that elevates our creativity. IF we use it that way. But do we use it that way? I think there will be some who do.

The majority of users seem to want convenience at any expense. Most are unconcerned with a loss of agency, almost enthusiastic about it if it removes the labor of thinking.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#183

Post by fennecbutt »

zdragnar wrote: post #46
don_neufeld wrote: post #3

Completely agree. From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive. I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer. Lest you wonder “what does this gu…

Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain. I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calcula…

Feels different, comes naturally, without conscious thought, just like we don't focus on beating our hearts.

And agree about learning by practicing a skill being best. But you and I both know the school system has worked on rote memorisation for hundreds of years at least and still is now.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#184

Post by musicale »

fennecbutt wrote: post #181
abathologist wrote: post #159

I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…

99% if not 100% of human thought and general output is derivative. Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. Try to think of an object that doesn't exist, and isn't based on anything you've ever seen before, a completely new object with no basis in our reality. It's impossible. Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

> Writers made elves by adding pointy ears to a human. That's it.

Humans have been interested in supernatural beings for thousands of years. Their appearance is usually less important than their powers and abilities.

The word is present in Old English and Old Norse, and elves appear in Norse mythology.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#185

Post by fennecbutt »

ay wrote: post #115

Very strange. Either the author uses some magic AI, or I am holding it wrong. I used LLMs since a couple of years, as a nice tool. Besides that: I have tried using LLMs to create cartoon pictures. The first impression is “wow”; but after a bunch of pictures you see the evidently repetitive “style”. Using LLMs to write poetry results is also quite cool at first, but after a few iterations you see the evidently repetit…

>evidently repetitive “style”.

Use LORAs, write better prompts. I've done a lot of diffusion and especially in 2025 it's not difficult to get out something quite good.

Repetitive style is funny, because that's what human artists do for the most part. I'm a furry, I look at a lot of art and individual styles are a well established fact.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#186

Post by fennecbutt »

ebiester wrote: post #44
curl-up wrote: post #31

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity. My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but…

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

Let's be honest, humans have been creating slop for much longer then machines. Not a bad thing, but don't put it all on a pedestal.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#187

Post by fennecbutt »

drdeca wrote: post #59
Viliam1234 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.

If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.

I can draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's a serious contribution?

Where is the line drawn?

Is me sneezing a contribution to the world of art, since art is all about interpretation™®© and some smarmy critic will do a piece on how my sneeze is a visceral physical performative art illustrating the downfall of the modern world where technology binds us and we spend too much time inside surrounded by screens and dust and co2.

Nah, I just sneezed. That's all.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#188

Post by creata »

johnisgood wrote: post #119
don_neufeld wrote: post #3

Completely agree. From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive. I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer. Lest you wonder “what does this gu…

You can learn a lot from LLMs though, same with, say, Wikipedia. You need curiosity. You need the desire to learn. If you do not have it, then of course you will get nowhere, LLMs or no LLMs.

Honestly, I doubt that LLMs are great for learning. Too often, they output plausible-sounding things that turn out to be completely wrong. I know Wikipedia can have its problems with factuality, but this is on an entirely different level. (And yes, they do this even when they're allowed to do web searches and "reason".)

The effort of verifying everything it claims may or may not outweigh the effort of other means of learning.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#189

Post by Aziell »

A year ago, I used to journal almost every day. Writing was how I organized my thoughts, found direction, and occasionally uncovered ideas that even surprised me.

But gradually, I started relying on GPT to help me write. At first, it felt efficient. But over time, I noticed I was thinking less. The more I expressed myself through AI, the more my own desire to express started to fade. Now I’m trying to return to my own thinking process again，but it’s much harder than I expected.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#190

Post by freshbreath »

smcleod wrote: post #166

Early on I wondered if things like this might happen. But for me what has actually happened is almost the opposite, I seem to be experiencing more of a "tree of thoughts" with the ability to now perform rapid experimentation down a given branch, disposing branches that don't bare fruit. I feel more liberated to explore creative thoughts than ever. I spend less time on the toil needed both bootstrap my thought process…

> disposing branches that don’t bear fruit

Disposing branches that the LLM convinces you won’t bear fruit.

The Next Big Thing doesn’t exist yet. At least not in any LLM models. If someone thinks of the NBT, asks LLM about it, and LLM’s model says “impossible”, this could squander innovation.

Post reply on HN