[renewiltord]

It's hard for me to take all of this seriously because I sat and listened to how Google Search was going to ruin everyone's mind and without the skill of manual research we'd all be turned into imbeciles.

Back then we didn't have this particular modern meme of "extremely dangerous" for something like a syntactically inaccurate file so I suppose no one said it was "extremely dangerous" for people to copy-paste code from searches. SQL injection was fairly novel at the time but as that came up people would mock copy-paste scripters rather than act as if man's extinction was at hand from a vibe-coded single-page app that tells you which Pokemon you are.

Yes, yes, it's different now. But it was different then too. Search engines changed the stuff you could find from carefully curated Usenet channels to any rando with a blog. I suppose if we had modern sensibilities we'd say that was "extremely dangerous" too.

I've been writing code for decades, and it's true that I've seen nothing like this technology. It's true that it's a game changer and that with slightly different rates of change could have already lead to human extinction. But that doesn't mean that I have to lay any more credence to the guys who have, since time immemorial, said "this new thing makes something easier; it will make us worse because we do not slog as much".

[buovjaga]

> But that doesn't mean that I have to lay any more credence to the guys who have, since time immemorial, said "this new thing makes something easier; it will make us worse because we do not slog as much".

I don't use LLMs myself, but the anecdotes about skill atrophy seem credible. From the OP: "Even for me it shows. I tried to write some test code recently and I absolutely forgot how to write table tests because I generate all that. And it’s frightening."

An article about the topic that tries to stay positive: https://addyo.substack.com/p/avoiding-skill-atrophy-in-the-a...

[ImHereToVote]

I would posit that social media has made us worse. Hell, TV made our minds worse. I know it rotted mine to an extent. maybe there are externalities to search too. Maybe it devolved critical thinking skills. having a source at our fingertips made us source obsessed. Your cognitive dissonance just needs a good source to be placated.

[seadan83]

I would quibble a bit with some of your examples, but I think the points are conveyed well.

Though, it does seem ironic. A skeptic is someone that demands convincing evidence before believing an assertion. "AGI is around the corner", "self driving will replace human drivers", "don't learn how to code", "AI will replace developers", "AI cars will eliminate car accidents." The skeptics are the ones simply asking for evidence that any of that is true. A system that can barely count the 'R's in strawberry is supposed to be AGI in 3 years from now?? Let alone deliver on any of those other promises? Incredulity aside, let us see the evidence for any of it.

Though, those that are AI nay-sayers; that say AI will be a bad thing - they are not skeptics. They are making their own assertion. Namely that AI will be used as a crutch - that the lack of a slog will be a detriment. That is a claim, not skepticism. So, just ironic to be skeptical of the 'skeptics' and the lack of evidence from the 'skeptics' is used to dismiss the 'skeptics'.

[trog]

> It's hard for me to take all of this seriously because I sat and listened to how Google Search was going to ruin everyone's mind and without the skill of manual research we'd all be turned into imbeciles.

Have you recently watched a civilian perform a basic task? Their first approach is to use Google and pick the top result - ad or otherwise. I think websearch /has/ ruined everyone's minds, and it is being exacerbated on a daily basis by AI.