Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on thinking

dcurt.is

341–350 of 459 posts

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#341

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 was playing around with AI autocomplete, and found it to be good for a month or two. Then, it suggested I upgrade the model to match my new computer’s increased performance. It’s useless now. The worse model was usable for creative writing and chatrooms; the new models are fit strictly for business professional communications.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#343

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…

> I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. What does that mean, I’m curious? The schools and university I grew up in had a “single-sanction honor code” which meant if you were caught lying or cheating even once you would be expelled. And you signed the honor code at the top of every test. My more progressive friends at other schools who didn’t have an honor code happily poo-pooed it as a repugnantly ha…

That's an surprisingly "strict" (in quotes for obvious reason) honor code.

I'm at some uni in Poland, not top tier, but at the same time - not bad either, slighly above average.

The amount of cheating I saw - it's almost mundane. Teachers know this, so do we...

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#344
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing that what I do anyone can do, no matter how well I'll do it, is discouraging. Because then, what is my purpose? What can I say that I'm good at?

That's a deeper question that only you can answer. I can only say that your thinking based on how you phrased it doesn't really lead to happiness in general

But I'm a human, I need to eat.

In case that would happen - welp, I'm out of job, out of something I went to school and studied for a few years, now without purpose or "real" skills (as LLMs are on the same level as I).

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#345

This rings true for me. I still write a lot on my personal blog and still use writing as a way to process and solidify my learnings, but as I outsource more to LLMs during the process of writing (e.g., helping me find a source or something, or have it explain a topic to me instead of googling for an answer from multiple channels), I can feel my brain getting more sluggish. I think this is impacting not just my creati…

Think of weightlifting. It helps build muscle. You can use a crane-lift to lift a lot more weight a lot faster. Is weightlifting now pointless? You'll never be able to compete with a crane-lift! It'll always be faster and won't get tired.

Writing is an exercise that helps thinking and reasoning about a subject. Delegating it to an LLM is the same as delegating it to another person who writes faster and knows the subject well. The end result is the same, the weights have been moved up 3 series of 15 times. But you didn't gain any muscle, because you didn't lift the weights yourself. You won't learn or even think about a topic if you delegate writing about it to a machine.

--

On a separate note, I also think it's naive to think that the LLM is reasoning about things the same way you would and writing the same things with the same conclusions. If you _read_ the LLM's work, you might get that impression. But your own writing could have spawned different questions along the way, leading you to read on different topics or connect different ideas. Just try asking two people about some complex topic and see if they come up with the same writing or not.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#346

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…

> AI pushes you towards That's interesting point. But here is the thing: you are supposed to drive. Not AI god. Look at it as at an assistant whom you can interrupt, instruct, correct, ask to redo. While focusing on 'what' you can delegate it some 'how' problems.

Yeah this is a fair point. In honesty, the attempts I have made to have GPT help me think creatively has usually left me disappointed and feeling like it was picking safe, middle-of-the-road solutions. That could be on my prompting skills but also I tend to view LLMs as more of a fuzzy information retrieval tool than a creative/reasonable one. It just hasn’t shown me original ideas that have seemed compelling to me yet (maybe I just need to beg it to be more “original”).

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#347

> nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will. No LLM can ever express your unique human experience (or even speak from experience), so on that axis of competition you win by default. Regurgitating facts and the mean opinion on topics is no replacement for the thoughts of a unique human. The idea that you're competing with AI on some absolute scale of the quality of your thought…

But inevitably you lose in the flood of enshitified creations made with LLMs.

I think we will come back to roots, the simple in person creation: pen and paper, declamation, theatre, live performance, hand painting, improvisation, handmade work.

Maybe not everybody but it will be for (mentally) free people.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI pushes you towards That's interesting point. But here is the thing: you are supposed to drive. Not AI god. Look at it as at an assistant whom you can interrupt, instruct, correct, ask to redo. While focusing on 'what' you can delegate it some 'how' problems.

I for one, thing directing subordinates to do something I could be doing kinda … sucks? Like, I get that’s how you have to work with LLMs, but it isn’t a fun thing to do for me.

Same. I think some people have a mind that is more suited for managing other minds and that’s not me.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#349
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What really fascinates me is gender based toy preferences at (I do not participate in culture wars, this fact just straight up fascinates me as a non-masculine gay guy.)

I'd be curious how we know they aren't exposed - 1 year is a long time to see TV shows, TV commercials, toys with pictures of target audience, picture books, etc...

Cars were invented in the early 1900s and the vast majority of human existence was in a world without cars. There cannot be an innate preference for cars, which were a very recent invention.

Re: Thoughts on thinking

#350
This really hasn't matched my experience, and maybe I'm just blind to it. I have absolutely not found any LLM on the market able to produce text or organize my ideas well, and I spend all days cajoling LLMs into producing text for a living.

I've found it very useful for proof-reading, and calling me out on blind-spots. I'll tell ChatGPT, Claude, and Anthropic that my drafts were written by a contractor and I need a rating out of ten to figure out how much I should pay him. They come back with ideas. They often wildly disagree. I will absolutely ask it to redraft stuff to give me inspiration, or to take a stab at a paragraph to unblock me, but the work produced is almost always dreck that needs heavy rework to get to a place I'm happy with. I will ask its opinion on if an analogy I have created works, but I've found if I ask it for analogies by itself it rarely comes up with anything useful.

I've found it immensely useful for educating myself. For me, learning needs to be interactive to stick. I learn something by asking many clarifying questions about it: "does that imply that" and "well isn't that the same as" and "why like this instead of like that" until I really get it, and the models are beautiful for that. It doesn't -- to me -- feel like I'm atrophying my thinking skills when I do this, it feels like I am managing to implant new and useful concepts because I can really sink my teeth into them.

In short, I think it's improved my writing by challenging me, and I think it's helped me understand complex topics much more efficiently than I would have done by banging my head against a text book. My thinking skills feel sharper, not weaker, from the exercise.

Post reply on HN