[andy99]

I think it is an information virus, but differently - it's homogenized everything, and made people dumber and lazier. It's poisoned public and professional discourse by reducing writing and thinking from the richness of humanity to one narrow style with a tiny latent space, and simultaneously convinced people that this is what good writing looks like. And it's erased thought from board classes of endeavor. This virus is much worse than the relatively benign symptoms described in the article.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Like most progress, it made some things easier ( and some things worse as a result ). What I do find particularly fascinating is that it is doing that even in professions that should know better ( lawyers, doctors ). That my boss uses it is no surprise me though. I always suspected he never really read my emails.

[kldg]

I've definitely been surprised by how it's being used; it's replacing people in places I don't think (even as a closet AI/LLM enthusiast) AI should ever be used: elder care, customer support (even on phone lines), for homework grading. -But I shouldn't have been so surprised, because some were already using robots for these tasks (or maybe not robots explicitly, but making CSRs/similar stick to scripts); my daughter was taking college placement tests recently -- even the essay questions were graded by software, and she's watched by software as she writes it. These things still seem to me like jobs which fundamentally require a human touch -- it's been especially amazing to me teachers are using AI to detect AI; you can't determine whether or not a robot wrote it, but you can assign a grade to it? Huh??

I have a very vocally anti-AI friend, but there is one thing he always goes on about that confuses me to no end: hates AI, strongly wants an AI sexbot, is constantly linking things trying to figure out how to get one, and asking me and the other nerds in our group about how the tech would work. No compromises anywhere except for one of the most human experiences possible. :shrug:

[sho_hn]

I think to me the weirdest and most unexpected (not so much in retrospect) AI use is that people will use it all day long to navigate chat conversations with their boyfriends/girlfriends, having it suggest romantic replies, etc.

I expect people to be lazy, but that we'd outsource feelings was surprising.

[quesera]

I have a family member who worked in a Hallmark store when they launched a custom card printing service (in-store, select the cover art and write your own message, printed on a card).

She says that about 75% of the custom card customers would ask her what they should write for a message.

She wrote messages of friendship, love, birthdays, graduations, congratulations, sympathy, etc. To support her coworkers on other shifts, she filled an index card box with several dozen canned "custom" messages for Hallmark customers to choose from.

Somewhat separately, she reports that working at Hallmark is a good way to make a misanthrope out of an intelligent teenager. To which I reply that most of the intelligent teenagers I knew were already misanthropes! But the stories she tells, particularly of Christmas ornament hysteria, are hysterical.

[johnisgood]

Hmm, LLMs have helped me understand the perspective of my girlfriend better, and taught me to be a better listener and how to not act in various scenarios. I do not really use LLMs to write replies to my girlfriend, however. I have used it before to make some corrections, but the essence remained, and it came from me.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

They aren't outsourcing feelings, they are outsourcing how to express them. As someone who is not good at expressing, I get this.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

It made me chuckle, because I absolutely buy the anecdotal anti-AI friend. On the other hand, if he applied himself, maybe he could figure it out. I honestly can't say I am not intruiged by the possibility.

[nunez]

Wait til he finds /r/LocalLLaMA

Sexbots are the raison d'etre for that sub

[melagonster]

Their way is similar to programmers. The proficient user can distinguish whether the output is correct at first look.

[doctorpangloss]

People want AI lawyers and they really invented AI judges.

[arthurcolle]

Usually judges start out as lawyers

[majormajor]

https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt... This seems relevant here in a "the results agree" way.

[kordlessagain]

People have always tended toward taking shortcuts. It's human nature. So saying "this technology makes people dumber or lazier" is tricky, because you first need a baseline: exactly how dumb or lazy were people before?

To quantify it, you'd need measurable changes. For example, if you showed that after widespread LLM adoption, standardized test scores dropped, people's vocabulary shrank significantly, or critical thinking abilities (measured through controlled tests) degraded, you'd have concrete evidence of increased "dumbness."

But here's the thing: tools, even the simplest ones, like college research papers, always have value depending on context. A student rewriting existing knowledge into clearer language has utility because they improve comprehension or provide easier access. It's still useful work.

Yes, by default, many LLM outputs sound similar because they're trained to optimize broad consensus of human writing. But it's trivially easy to give an LLM a distinct personality or style. You can have it write like Hemingway or Hunter S. Thompson. You can make it sound academic, folksy, sarcastic, or anything else you like. These traits demonstrably alter output style, information handling, and even the kind of logic or emotional nuance applied.

Thus, the argument that all LLM writing is homogeneous doesn't hold up. Rather, what's happening is people tend to use default or generic prompts, and therefore receive default or generic results. That's user choice, not a technological constraint.

In short: people were never uniformly smart or hardworking, so blaming LLMs entirely for declining intellectual rigor is oversimplified. The style complaint? Also overstated: LLMs can easily provide rich diversity if prompted correctly. It's all about how they're used, just like any other powerful tool in history, and just like my comment here.

[majormajor]

We could wait for further studies, but some already exist: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...

You say it's human nature to take shortcuts, so the danger of things that provide easy homogenizing shortcuts should be obvious. It reduces the chance of future innovation by making it more easy for more people have their perspectives silently narrowed.

Personally I don't need to see more anecdotal examples matching that study to have a pretty strong "this is becoming a problem" leaning. If you learn and expand your mind by doing the work, and now you aren't doing the work, what happens? It's not just "the AI told me this, it can't be wrong" for the uneducated, it's the equivalent of "google maps told me to drive into the pond" for the white-collar crowd that always had those lazy impulses but overcame them through their desire to make a comfortable living.

[momento]

"The style complaint? Also overstated: L[...]"

This is how I know this comment was written by an AI.

[joegibbs]

It’s the latest in a series of homogenising inventions - the printing press, radio, television, the internet - that will probably result in people of the future speaking and thinking more similarly than today. First went minor languages, then dialects, now regional differences within languages. Next will probably be the difference between different English accents - I think by 2100 English speakers will all be speaking with a generically American accent no matter where they are on earth. Then next will probably be other national languages - 90% of Swedes and Dutch people already speak English.

[monkaiju]

The printing press (and the others listed) aren't homogenizing, they're if anything tools of diversification. They allowed far more novel ideas to be presented and distributed than before, AI on the other hand "distils" and "reduced" large heterogeneous information into a much more homogenous slop.

[3willows]

Perhaps that is the real danger. Everyone except a small elite who (rightly) feel they understand how LLMs work would simply give up serious thinking and accept whatever "majority" opinion is in their little social media bubble. We wouldn't have the patience to really engage with genuinely different viewpoints any more.

I recall some Chinese language discussion about the experience of studying abroad in the Anglophone world in the early 20th century and the early 21st century. Paradoxically, even if you are a university student, it may now be harder to break out of the bubble and make friends with non-Chinese/East Asians than before. In the early 20th century, you'd probably be one of the few non-White students and had to break out of your comfort zone. Now if you are Chinese, there'd be people from a similar background virtually anywhere you study in the West, and it is almost unnatural to make a deliberate effort to break out of that.

[3willows]

The point being: when you find someone who is tailoring all his/her/its attention to you and you alone, why bother talking to anyone else.

[Hupriene]

That's some real obsessive stalker logic there.

[lazide]

other side. co-dependent.

[iszomer]

Broadly speaking, this would be how I view the widening diplomatic gap between the CCP and Taiwan. Not the DPP, not the KMT, Taiwan.

[computerex]

To be honest I think you and others over play it. ChatGPT and LLM's in general sound pretty corporatey. A lot of the at least English written text online is pretty homogenous in style.

[cal_dent]

I think there is some truth this. But there is also another plausible scenario, where styles now change far quicker than we probably expect. We as a society get bored after an x amount of time. That time has potentially shortened now as the pace of new output generated has increased so much. What probably would typically have taken lets say a decade and a half for people to get bored of (think about how all coffee shops started to copy Friends, and then the instagram minmial cafe aesthetic became a thing) is probably shorter because LLM means that it'll be oversaturated very quickly.

The current style & cadence of LLM output is already getting tiring for many so I'd expect a different style to take hold soon enough. And given LLM can mimic any style that is easy enough to do at scale and quickly. Then the cycle commences again until someone comes up with a novel style of writing, that people like, that the LLM dont know yet and then the cycle starts again....

Edit:

I also vaguely remember an article around the cultural impact of one of the image creation ai early on, maybe Dall-E if memory serves me well. I remember very little of the article now except a comment an artist made which was along the lines that in a few years the image generation would be so good & realistic, that inevitably a counter culture will emerge around nostalgia for the weird hallucinatory creations it used to make at the start simply because at least it'll be more interesting. In a similar way you get the nolstagia for things like vinyl & handcrafted toys etc. I think about that aspect of it broadly a lot.

[echo7394]

The movie Idiocracy comes to mind almost every day for me as of late.

[sho_hn]

What's weird is that so many people shrug this off with "eh, it's what they said about the calculator".

Which to me is roughly as bad a take as "LLMs are just fancy auto-complete" was.

I feel it's worth reminding ourselves that evolution on the planet has rarely opted for human-level intelligence and that we possess it might just be a quirk we shouldn't take for granted; it may well be that we could accidentally habituate and eventually breed outselves dumber and subsist fine (perhaps in different numbers), never realizing what we willingly gave up.

[Nevermark]

Our thumbs, ..., our intellect, and especially language, gave us an ecological/economic niche.

We became a technological species.

We observed, standardized and mechanized our environments to work for us. That is our niche.

But then things snowballed in the last couple of centuries. A threshold was crossed. Our technology became our environment, and we began adapting the environment for our technologies direct benefit, for own indirect benefit.

Simple roads for us at first, then paved for mechanized contraptions. Wires for talking at first, then optimized for computers. We are now almost completely building out a technological world for the convenience and efficiency of the technology.

And once our technology frees us from dependence on others, a second threshold will be crossed. Then neither others or the technology, will need us.

I don't see a species of devolving humans, no longer needed by their creations, in a world now convenient for those creations, finding a happy niche.

If there is a happy landing, it will need to take a different route than that.

[johnisgood]

As Rust (from True Detective) have said: let us walk hand in hand into extinction. Or something along these lines. :)

[saghm]

It seems like a stretch to argue that we have any clue what the evolutionary consequences would be for something that's been around only a couple of years. Human-level intelligence took millions of years to evolve even when the lifespans of our ancestors were shorter than they are now, so trying to predict how something so new will affect the biology of future generations seems like it would be pretty much impossible to reason about. Even trying to predict how technology will affect society in a single generation is hard enough, and that's hardly long enough for any noticeable evolutionary changes to our intelligence as a species to become noticeable.

[audinobs]

I don't know or really care what other people are doing with LLMs.

I have learned so much the past 2.5 years it is almost hard to believe.

To say I am getting dumber is just completely preposterous.

Maybe this would be leading me astray if I had the intelligence of Paul Dirac and I wasn't fully applying my intelligence. The problem is I don't have anything like the intelligence of Paul Dirac.

[nunez]

People who make that retort forget that the calculator was immensely helpful but _also_ antiquated the need for mental math, which in my opinion is a bad thing. (Everyone should be able to calculate 5% and 10% of numbers, given how easy it is to do)

[johnisgood]

Well, I suppose many people do not know of these "mental math tricks".

To get 10% of a number, just move the decimal left: 10% of 40 -> 4.0.

To get 5% of this number, get 10% first, then halve it. It is the half of 10%, which in this case would be 2.0.

If you want to do this on a computer / calculator, you simply do: 40 * 0.10 for 10% or 0.05 for 5%. I was a very young kid when I learned to do this on a calculator, and I absolutely loved it!

[nunez]

Exactly, but when you learn math by calculator, you don't learn these tricks, which brings us to today, where tipping calculators rank pretty well on app stores.

[colejohnson66]

What makes tipping calculators even crazier is that your phone already has a calculator.

[makk]

It hasn't homogenized everything. It's further exposed humans for who they are. Humans are the virus.

[mensetmanusman]

(1999)

[jvm___]

Agent Smith had it right when he was interviewing Morpheus in the Matrix.

[goatlover]

And then ironically Smith became a virus threatening both humans and machines. However, Agent Smith was the Oracle's tool to force a treaty between the machines and humans. As the Architect said at the end of Revolutions, she played a dangerous game.

But it was the only way forward to a new equilibrium.

[crimsoneer]

This is how the church felt about the printing press.

[nerevarthelame]

While the church feared people interpreting information on their own, with LLMs it's the opposite: we fear that most interpretation of information will be done through a singular bland AI extruder. Tech companies running LLMs become the pre-press churches, with individuals depending on them to analyze and interpret information on their behalf.

[majormajor]

The church would've LOVED everyone asking the same one-to-four sources everything. ChatGPT is literally a controllable oracle. Quite the opposite of the printing press.

"Running your own models on your own hardware" is an irrelevant rounding error here compared to the big-company models.

[toofy]

this would be the opposite. the llm situation may be heading back towards something similar the church age.

the church did all of the reading and understanding for us. owners of the church gobbled up as much information as it could (encouraging confessions) and then the church owners decided when, how, where and which of that information flowed to us.

[nunez]

This exactly is the terminal state of big AI: models that only four companies can train (on datasets only they can obtain) who also happen to own all of the ancillary services for accessing those models (because most businesses are really chatgpt in a trenchcoat). Yet the world is begging and kicking down the doors for this, just like they did for social media.

[XorNot]

Who is "the Church" in this analogy?

[rolph]

refers to the gutenberg press, and mass production of printed works, threatening the siloed, ivory towers of knowledge at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#Gutenberg.27s_p...

if everyone has a bible, then who needs the church to tell you what it says.

[LtWorf]

> if everyone has a bible, then who needs the church to tell you what it says.

Clearly, all the protestants who burned more witches than the catholics ever did, and kept at it for centuries after the inquisition had stopped. But that's just my opinion here.

[ceejayoz]

Relying on an AI oracle to think for you is just as bad as relying on a priestly one.

[brookst]

People who consider themselves exceptionally smart, who are well educated and write well, who only ever need to communicate in their native tongue ye, and who have the luxury of investing time in developing a personal writing style.

It is a good analogy. There is great concern that the unwashed masses won’t know how to handle this tool and will produce information today’s curators would not approve of.

[andy99]

It's an extremely poor analogy, the original point is its an information virus telling people what to think (or thinking for them). It's the exact opposite of the allowing people to think for themselves that came with the enlightenment, it's back to the days of the "church" (someone else) telling people how to think and literally writing their words for them.

[mensetmanusman]

This analogy is going places.