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

The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

theargumentmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 341 posts

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#321

Post by legacynl »

dns_snek wrote: post #131
DrewADesign wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A refusal to even acknowledge that AI might work isn't a very sensible refutation of the risks we're going to face. That's probably why they're not doing that. The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works.

> The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works. No it doesn't require that because the vast majority of people aren't rational actors and they don't optimize for the quality of their work - they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience. They'll happily produce and defend low quality work if they get to avoid the discomfort of havin…

> No it doesn't require that because the vast majority of people aren't rational actors and they don't optimize for the quality of their work - they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience.

People are rational, and the example you give actually shows that; they prefer reduced workload, so they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience. What isn't rational about that?

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#322

Post by legacynl »

daxfohl wrote: post #117

The author may have hit on the answer without realizing it. He's in the gym doing pull-ups. Is his lat strength necessary for some important part of his survival? Highly unlikely. Pre-20th century, when most work was highly physical, would he have gone out after work to research and test out efficient lat exercises? Probably not either. If we're not using our brains for work, then maybe it'll actually increase our de…

> The author may have hit on the answer without realizing it. He's in the gym doing pull-ups. Is his lat strength necessary for some important part of his survival? Highly unlikely. Pre-20th century, when most work was highly physical, would he have gone out after work to research and test out efficient lat exercises? Probably not either.

Yeah but don't you kinda proof his point though? When we all created machines to do all the manual labor for us we got fat and unhealthy. Only recently we've really began to understand how important excercise (manual labor) is for us.

I fear that the obvious result of a laissez-faire attitude is that in 20-30 years we find out that there was actual benefit of using our mind, reading, writing, etc.

In the case of our muscles, we were lucky that we didn't need those to identify the health benefits of excercise and we could come up with a solution. In the case of our brains, we might not be as lucky, so maybe be prudent and assume it's something that's beneficial?

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#323

Post by legacynl »

kristianc wrote: post #77

I always think for pieces like these which claim atrophy, well yes , but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it. The barrier to many things isn't becoming lazy when you're already halfway proficient, it's getting started in the first place. AI lowers the getting started cost of almost everything exponentially. If the argument is that people shouldn't be able to get started on those thin…

> but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it

The problem with that is that there's a lot of cases where a total newbie engaging with some subject could lead to problems. They have a false confidence in their abilities, while not knowing what they don't know.

What if you want to try chemistry and ask the AI about what you need to know. Since you don't know anything about chemistry you don't know if the answers are complete or correct. Because you don't know about chemistry you also don't know about the dangers you need to ask about, what prevention to take, etc.

The same could be said about many different subjects: rock-climbing, home-improvement, electrical work, car maintenance, etc.

You might argue then that it would still be perfect for low-risk subjects, but how would a total newbie be able to validly determine risks of anything they don't know anything about?

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#324

Post by Veedrac »

DrewADesign wrote: post #51
Veedrac wrote: post #17

A refusal to even acknowledge that AI might work isn't a very sensible refutation of the risks we're going to face.

> A refusal to even acknowledge that AI might work isn't a very sensible refutation of the risks we're going to face. That's probably why they're not doing that. The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works.

The intro to the article explicitly states that it will put aside any fanciful ideas that the technology might be better in the future; that "rather than try to forecast the future as it might turn out, I’d prefer to describe reality as it already exists".

The article acknowledges that AI progress to date has worked. It snidely disagrees without argument that AI the field could work from here on out.

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#325

Post by walleeee »

dcastonguay wrote: post #18

My current opinion is that AI is just a thing that is going to further amplify our existing tendencies (on a person-to-person basis). I've personally found it to be extremely beneficial in research, learning, and the category of "things that take time because of the stuff you have to mechanically go through and not because of the brainpower involved". I have been able to spend so much more time on things that I feel…

> I don't really understand yet why people don't see that they are doing this to themselves.

Maybe it has something to do with the purveyors of these products

- claiming they will take the jobs

- designing them to be habit-forming

- advertising them as digital mentats

- failing to advertise risks of using them

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#326

Post by dns_snek »

legacynl wrote: post #321
dns_snek wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works. No it doesn't require that because the vast majority of people aren't rational actors and they don't optimize for the quality of their work - they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience. They'll happily produce and defend low quality work if they get to avoid the discomfort of havin…

> No it doesn't require that because the vast majority of people aren't rational actors and they don't optimize for the quality of their work - they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience. People are rational, and the example you give actually shows that; they prefer reduced workload, so they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience. What isn't rational about that?

> What isn't rational about that?

If people made decisions the way you described, by carefully considering and accepting trade-offs then I would agree that they are rational actors.

But people don't do that, they pick an outcome they prefer and try to rationalize it afterwards by claiming that trade-offs don't exist.

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#327

Post by kristianc »

legacynl wrote: post #323
kristianc wrote: post #77

I always think for pieces like these which claim atrophy, well yes , but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it. The barrier to many things isn't becoming lazy when you're already halfway proficient, it's getting started in the first place. AI lowers the getting started cost of almost everything exponentially. If the argument is that people shouldn't be able to get started on those thin…

> but what about the things that you would have never even tried without it The problem with that is that there's a lot of cases where a total newbie engaging with some subject could lead to problems. They have a false confidence in their abilities, while not knowing what they don't know. What if you want to try chemistry and ask the AI about what you need to know. Since you don't know anything about chemistry you do…

Sure, if someone’s first use case for AI is synthesising chlorine gas in their shed, that’s a separate issue.

Most of us are talking about writing, coding, or analysis, not hazardous materials though.

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#328

Post by walleeee »

simianwords wrote: post #101

Why does everyone talk about this part of the issue but never the other one? Society can’t progress if we can’t delegate the boring stuff and work on complicated stuff. How else will it progress? Do you think we could have progressed to this level if we were still calculating stuff by hand? Log tables??

"This level" presumably being when the accumulation of progress past at last overwhelms us in all its complication?

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#329

Post by [deleted] »

Veedrac wrote: post #324
DrewADesign wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A refusal to even acknowledge that AI might work isn't a very sensible refutation of the risks we're going to face. That's probably why they're not doing that. The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works.

The intro to the article explicitly states that it will put aside any fanciful ideas that the technology might be better in the future; that "rather than try to forecast the future as it might turn out, I’d prefer to describe reality as it already exists". The article acknowledges that AI progress to date has worked. It snidely disagrees without argument that AI the field could work from here on out.

[deleted]

Re: The deadline isn't when AI outsmarts us – it's when we stop using our own minds

#330

Post by foxglacier »

raincole wrote: post #100
foxglacier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been reading too much news. There are global societal risks but they're not just whatever the popular bogeymen of hour are supposed to be. Some of your concerns might even be backwards. I doubt you've critically thought about any of these and are just regurgitating what was fed to you. If you lived in an earlier time, you'd be worrying about the rise of homosexuality, communism, atheism, etc.

The exact same argument can be made for people who claiming AI would make us dumber: If they lived in an earlier time, they'd be worrying about the rise of google, the internet, tv, radio... were going to make people stop using their brains. Socrates believed writing was going to make people stop memorizing stuff. I'm not a doomsayer who thinks the world is on the edge of collapsing. But I do think the issues I liste…

Yes it could and they're also mostly just reflecting what the media riles them up with. People don't work out their concerns themselves, they copy the popular beliefs.

Nuclear war is still a risk, as are meteor strikes, but somehow they aren't in fashion at the moment. There are yet other risks that people don't want to think about or which protecting ourselves against would be very painful so we also mostly refuse to think about.

Post reply on HN