[blairbeckwith]

What's the opposite of the slippery slope fallacy, where we convince ourselves that there isn't a slope at all? I agree that there has been doomsayers with every technological advance, but surely there can be a point where a piece of technology truly does remove the need for people to think to a problematic degree.

[bheadmaster]

> What's the opposite of the slippery slope fallacy, where we convince ourselves that there isn't a slope at all?

Sounds like healthy skepticism to me. Assume nothing has changed until proven otherwise.

[AnimalMuppet]

Assume things do not represent a discontinuous change until proven otherwise.

AI has changed some things, and will change some more. Pretending otherwise isn't healthy skepticism, it's hiding your head in the sand.

The real question is, which things does it change, and how much? Don't assume a discontinuous change without enough evidence, but there is enough evidence that something has changed.

[bheadmaster]

> there is enough evidence that something has changed

Of course, something has changed - every invention changes something, that is almost a tautology. However, is there any evidence that the change is negative and drastic enough to warrant my attention and time of day? I think not.

[DougN7]

My mother and I were just discussing how dumb people have gotten in just the past few years. It’s like they don’t think any deeper than a meme - no nuance is considered. You easily see it in the political realm. The only thing we can come up with is social media being the cause. I remember seeing a video (on Reddit) of a teacher teaching his class, and 100% of the students were looking at phones instead of listening. Say what you want about the quality of the teacher, students, etc, but that level of disengagement didn’t happen before social media.

[AnimalMuppet]

At least in the political realm, memes have worked for a very long time - at least more than a century, maybe even millennia. An example: "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House. Ha ha ha." Another: "Peace. Bread. Land."

So I would say that there seems to have always been a segment of the population on whom political memes were effective - probably more effective than longer discourse.

Now, you could argue that more people are in that camp today. I can't argue with that; I don't have any data one way or the other. But I would at least suggest the alternate possibility that it's more visible today that people are in that camp.

[mike_hearn]

I went to school before smartphones. Back then we used to stare out of the window, throw paper aeroplanes, whisper talk to friends or - mostly - just sit there being insanely bored and checked out. There was never a time when teachers all held their students in rapt attention.

At least with the phones those students might well be learning something, or at least getting some reading practice. Even in the most pessimal case it's not useless. When I was at school there were still teachers whose entire teaching methodology was writing out notes and diagrams on a rolling blackboard, and we copied them onto paper. Literally just human photocopiers! You think we were engaged? No chance. I remember about three facts from years of being in those classes, and those facts are useless. Even scrolling Instagram would have been 10x more educational!

[DougN7]

I understand the sentiment, but I have a hard time seeing any educational value is 99% of anything I’ve ever seen on tiktok. There definitely were bad teaches, and I assume still are. But the window and paper airplanes weren’t tuned to suck you in for hours and hold your attention. I still think things are legitimately worse today.

[mwcampbell]

Then forbid those specific apps, not the device itself.

[falconertc]

If technology has truly removed a need to think in a certain capacity, then surely it has just expanded our skills enough that we don't need to be so personally skilled in that capacity. We still teach kids basic math, although I do nearly every daily arithmetic with a calculator these days. The dream of technology is that we will be able to let go of skills that we used to see as essential. That's success, not failure.

[blairbeckwith]

I think I agree that AI will be a net benefit, but in world where it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a human because that human is so used to talking to a chatbot or someone doesn't have the skills to research a problem they're facing because they've always had a chatbot to ask ... I would argue that something of value has been lost.

[falconertc]

Being unable to have a meaningful conversation sounds like general technological skepticism to me. I don't see any reason to think talking to chatbots will erode our conversation skills, anymore than the internet or TV or books has in the past. People interact in the real world much in the same way they did 100 years ago. As for having the skills to research a problem, is chatGPT much different than the adoption of search engines? Many adults probably couldn't find information in a library very easily these days, but if they have no need for this skill anyway, I don't see that as a loss.

[gls2ro]

I dont think your analogy is true internet or TV. You dont talk with the TV so when watching you use other set of skills. The same with internet.

But with multi channel multi modal AI you can have conversations. If you do that a lot you might get it that you dont gaveto be polite, or say sorry or even admit your own mistakes. The current AI does not care about those. But people (the current ones) do care.

Not saying this change is bad or good, but I also dont think there will be no change in how we interact with each other.

[mcphage]

It’s not quite a fallacy name, but I’ve heard that called boiling a frog: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog