[dead]
AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
201–210 of 656 posts
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#202‘AI’ is my newest litmus test for whether who I’m engaging with should be taken seriously or not. ‘AI’ doesn’t exist, and LLMs have vanishingly narrow legitimate justifiable use cases. Any output from one is intrinsically, explosively, imprecise, and can’t be trusted to be build upon without specialist treatment. I’m yet to identify any application of a LLM which can rationally be mistaken for intelligence. Anyone wh…
> ‘AI’ doesn’t exist, and LLMs have vanishingly narrow legitimate justifiable use cases. … I’m yet to identify any application of a LLM which can rationally be mistaken for intelligence.
What’s the opposite of AI psychosis? Burying your head in the sand? Because anyone who could write this unironically today is certainly afflicted.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#203For all we know, we're in the early stages of making traditional (software) engineering obsolete. As in, we don't know if the role of software engineer as we know it today will still exist in 10-15-20 years. I mean, right now we're at the stage where any user can get AI to make you software to solve very specific things - almost no technical knowledge needed. My prediction is that first will software engineers be ren…
Your prediction is... missing so much detail of how that prediction actually happens that it is pointless. This is my big dislike re. the discussion of LLMs and the effect of AI more broadly. Unless you bother to make an effort in going deeper why post it? Theres no value. The same stuff has been posted for months and even years at this point.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#204‘AI’ is my newest litmus test for whether who I’m engaging with should be taken seriously or not. ‘AI’ doesn’t exist, and LLMs have vanishingly narrow legitimate justifiable use cases. Any output from one is intrinsically, explosively, imprecise, and can’t be trusted to be build upon without specialist treatment. I’m yet to identify any application of a LLM which can rationally be mistaken for intelligence. Anyone wh…
[dead]
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#205Huberman: Your brain has a region that only grows when you do things you don't want to do ...or as I interpret it your brain grows only when it does things that are difficult. If you remove the difficulty, it will atrophy into a hum of a mindless chit-chat. Engineering the data structures and control flows from scratch is a completely different than asking an LLM to scaffold them for you.
[deleted]
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#206No, AI is not creating that group of people. They already existed. They were the people who would google for StackOverflow snippets and copy+paste them without even reading the entire snippet, much less understand them. Same people, new tool.
100% agree. The key difference now though is that it's no longer 'swim or sink immediately' situation - which used to be a forcing function against intellectual laziness where it was a choice.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you graduate your engineering degree without being able to think? Even my colleagues who cheated their way through uni still needed critical thinking to do that and get away with cheating without being caught. People might hate this but being a good cheat requires a lot of critical thinking.
Grade inflation and schools passing kids who should fail to game metrics and keep collecting student loans is a problem. I wouldnt consider hiring anybody from my alma mater who didnt score a sandard deviation or higher on the tests.
Unis imo are irrelvant in the context of software production. Id take someone who didnt finish or dropped out provided they can answer the question below.
The only thing worth asking people is: what have you produced? Within this one question is so much detail that any other artifact is moot.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, 9 women can't make 9 babies in a month either
No idea why you were dv'd. It still takes roughly nine months to make a human baby, regardless of how many women or babies are involved!
Sometimes HN doesn't like jokes, which is okay. I didn't really contribute much to discussion, so I probably deserve some downvotes. I'm ok with it.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are changing your argument by adding this: "when they started in a garage." 'Lean agile' tech companies are by far the exception, not the rule. Look at OpenAI and Anthropic, both fairly new companies that are excessively political already. This 'garage stage' of lacking politics is a myth, read old stories about Microsoft, when it was 15 people it was political.
>You are changing your argument by adding this: "when they started in a garage." No, you are. You first asked: "When was tech not bureaucratic and political?" To which I replied "in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's when they started in garages". What did you fail to understand here? >Look at OpenAI and Anthropic, both fairly new companies that are excessively political already. Everything becomes political when you tell th…
Why did you just lie about what you wrote?
What you actually wrote in the comment four hours ago:
>60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, basically before the Google and Meta found out ads and money printing run the world
Your lie just now:
>To which I replied "in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's when they started in garages".
---
>What did you fail to understand here?
Nothing because you never said it. Wild behavior.
Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it
#210Is it wise to understand everything that AI does for you? Let’s say a person has 10 units of learning per week. Is the author actually claiming that that person must not deliver any results beyond their 10 units? It makes some sense to have say 20 units of results and prioritize which ones to fully comprehend. I suspect APIs / libraries / languages / platforms will have more churn due to AI. New platform new system n…
> Is the author actually claiming that that person must not deliver any results beyond their 10 units?
No, I'm claiming that if someone or something else produced your 10 units of work, you better be able to verify that those 10 units of work are of at least the same quality as you producing them yourself. This is the bare minimum and not something to shift onto other people reviewing your work.
Beyond that, if that's all you do, you are basically proving you're replaceable. If you're smart, you'll reallocate intellectual capacity that was freed up by A.I. onto something A.I. can't do today.