Will is future-tense, it’s already happening en masse and we’ll documented.
I’m lazy enough without AI. I remember watching Her (2013) and thinking no, nope, not me. I believe I would be particularly vulnerable to something like that. I tried very early versions of ChatGPT and recently tried local LLMs but can’t say I’ve had much fun or found them useful in my personal or professional life.
I find this topic to be so strange.
Did people really have the impression that people were thinking before AI? That their brains weren’t lazy?
I don’t see how it could it any way get worse, it might actually get better for them to get some curated information instead.
It’s like a new category of codependence. The problem isn’t using AI, it’s that it’s maximally available and supportive
Every time you have a decision to make, it’s easy to consult the AI. It will support basically anything you say, it will help lay out the arguments, and it’ll give you a recommendation
The parts of your brain that make decisions and evaluate situations will physically atrophy if you don’t use them
And you consider this different from what was already going on?
Grok, is this true?
Heh
But the students who had used A.I. more like a tutor, to explain complex concepts or clarify ideas, not only retained high test scores in the second round, but their essays were higher quality as well.
That’s an interesting finding.
Because this is just researching, only if you double check the sources like you normally would.
This. This is what I do
Sounds like the rage against books at one time.
AI has lit a fire under my learning speed. It’s staggering what I can find and put together. Whether it’s IT stuff or biology, biochem, or history.
I’ve found incredible resources on all, directly connected to what I want to learn.
Yeah, one thing LLMs can do well is extract meaning from text. Whereas reading 200 pages usually represents hours of effort, a LLM can parse it in seconds, answer questions, summarize, reframe it, etc. to help accelerate your understanding of the material. This includes not just books and webpages, but codebases, data, and other materials. This enables a human to gain a rapid understanding, make more informed decisions, and devote more time to thinking critically about a topic. This is in stark contrast to using LLMs as slop generators and letting them do your critical thinking for you.
Yes i love this explanation, I too think the same, my issue is finding a decent enough LLM to help me do this (If anyone knows of one, please let me know) I say to myself and others “I want to utilise not mechanise”
meaning I want to use it as a tool to get where I need to be with clearer understanding for myself but not let it automate me out of the equation completely.
I always find its the way we use things that determines if a thing is a tool or a ‘weapon’
And sometimes it’s accurate!
It already has.
Did hammers make our muscles weak?
But yes, if someone uses “AI” as “Jinn, do THAT for me, and send me a notification when you’re ready” that might affect brain capabilities in the same way as any other laziness does.
And sometimes that’s all I need it to do, while I’m busy working on or learning something else.
We’re all lazy, to greater/lesser degrees, or about different things.
It’s up to the individual to face our own weaknesses.
If you sew someone’s eyes shut for some time and then unsew them, they will be blind because the brain kills off cells that it doesn’t use.
The brain kills off cells that it doesn’t use
It will make being lazy and/or stupid easier, so yes. Humans will be humans
And Plato argued that writing things down is bad because then we don’t need to remember anything.
First, there’s more to his arguments than not having to remember things. You have to compare written knowledge to oral tradition. If you read something and have questions, the words aren’t going to magically change to something understandable. If you are learning from someone and have questions, you can ask that someone and they can rephrase it in a new way that’s easier to understand. In a similar vein, if you read something written long ago like Shakespeare the language will have changed such that it’s more difficult to understand. If his stories had been passed down by word of mouth the meaning could be kept while the words used to communicate those meanings evolve with the language. Of course writing has many benefits that make it worthwhile, but pretending that the only argument against it is that it stores information on a page instead of your brain is wrong.
Second, people calling a new thing bad in the past has zero relevance to people calling a different new thing bad in the present. Plato/Socrates had no word generating machines in their time, so what do their opinions have to do with a word generating machine?
Thank-fucking-god someone said it. I’m so sick of hearing “but people said electricity was bad!” as an argument.
The more I learn about Plato the less I like him. If I want to remember something the best way is literally to write it down, it doesn’t matter if I throw away the note afterwards, my brain keeps the information much better.
Democritus came up with the comcept of atoms and Plato didnt like it and used his “ingluencer status” to attack him.
i puprosely used the term “influencer status” ibstead of popularity to paint a picture of how is see Plato.
Strange that
Our? I don’t use that shit!
You’re safe.
