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

AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

koshyjohn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 656 posts

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#261

Post by awepofiwaop »

puapuapuq wrote: post #32
awepofiwaop wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing plenty of internal work where I ask someone about their code, they ask Claude, and reply with "Claude says...". That's substantively different than going from assembly to C.

I am that someone thinking why you can't ask Claude yourself.

I wasn't really interested in asking Claude myself, because I wasn't really able to verify the claims being made so it's just noise. I'd hoped that the person who had written the code and put it up for review would be able to.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#262

Post by alphabeta3r56 »

staticshock wrote: post #66

The eloquence with which this point gets (repeatedly) made is continuing to improve each next time I read it. However, I still feel like we haven't nailed it. That is, we are not yet at the "aphorism" stage of the discourse (e.g. "the medium is the message", "you ship your org chart", "9 mothers can't make a baby in a month"), in which the most pointed version of this critique packs a punch in just a few words that r…

Taste/judgement cannot an AI beget

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#265

Post by bluefirebrand »

fragmede wrote: post #249
gerdesj wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

You're assuming all women in your cohort start not pregnant. However, given a random sampling of women across the entire human race, if you have approximately 14,000 women, statistics says you'll have a baby in a month. That is to say, the chances of one of those woman being 8 months pregnant reaches close enough to 1, given about 14,000 randomly selected women. Also, you can get a baby tonight if you steal one from…

> You're assuming all women in your cohort start not pregnant

As far as I know, all women everywhere start not pregnant

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#267

Post by Ronsenshi »

skybrian wrote: post #215
ipython wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve also seen along those lines “there is no compression algorithm for experience” - a nice summary of the hn posts from today.

It seems overly pessimistic about education. Book learning isn't everything, but a physics textbook could be seen as the compression of centuries of experience.

Book learning to me seems like a compression of knowledge that had to be acquired through many years of experimentation and observation. But knowledge is not an experience itself.

Take juggling for example - something that was on HN homepage last week. You can learn everything you need to know about juggling though a post or a book or an educational video. But can you juggle after all that book learning? Not at all - to be able to juggle one has to spend time practicing and no amount of reading can help meaningfully compress that process.

Muscle memory required for juggling is not a 1:1 correlation to experience, but I feel like it's close enough to it.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#268

Post by fragmede »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #265
fragmede wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming all women in your cohort start not pregnant. However, given a random sampling of women across the entire human race, if you have approximately 14,000 women, statistics says you'll have a baby in a month. That is to say, the chances of one of those woman being 8 months pregnant reaches close enough to 1, given about 14,000 randomly selected women. Also, you can get a baby tonight if you steal one from…

> You're assuming all women in your cohort start not pregnant As far as I know, all women everywhere start not pregnant

Tribbles, on the other hand...

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#269

Post by ebipaul5194 »

> To be very frank if professional with 10 year experience they know the flow and logic to code if they use the AI they can make the code and improve they way they code but if new bee is coding he doesn't what the flow or logic he simply copy paste AI won't allow those people to think.

Re: AI should elevate your thinking, not replace it

#270

Post by waffleman21 »

000ooo000 wrote: post #228

People who let AI do their thinking at any level never valued it in the first place. "Use it or lose it", as they say. The count of studies backing this up continue to rise and yet so do the articles saying LLM use in software development is fine because our value is in our thinking.

It may be a byproduct of my ADHD and general anxiety, or it's a common trait among all of us workers of computers, but I am thinking almost all the time. It's one of the beautiful things about the gig to be able to be completely engrossed in something else and then have an inspired thought hit you, some solution that took you not looking at it for a moment. AI now helps me turn those thoughts into action faster than I ever could. Without it, I'd lose the thread before it ever got off the ground sometimes. Now a thought can be made at least partly real from my phone in minutes, then I can go back to what I was doing without feeling like I might lose it if I look/think away again. Just my two cents on what the technology has enabled for me.
Post reply on HN