[Mabusto]

I think we'll start to see AI as any other tool that can atrophy your natural faculties. You can use a wheelchair to get everywhere, but your leg muscles will start to wither, but a wheeled vehicle for going longer distances is a genuinely useful tool.

Reaching for AI as a _substitute_ for thinking is bad, but reaching for it as a tool to assist thinking is good; you just need to be honest about whether it's your brain in the driver's seat or the chat bot.

[tharne]

> Reaching for AI as a _substitute_ for thinking is bad, but reaching for it as a tool to assist thinking is good; you just need to be honest about whether it's your brain in the driver's seat or the chat bot.

I think this is generally true, but human nature being what it is, the vast majority of people will use AI as a substitute for thinking rather than a tool to assist thinking. You can already see this from casual observation of today's AI users.

As I've grown older, I've noticed that more often than not, when someone says something to effect of, "Thing X can cause problems, but is great if used properly", you can be almost 100% certain that Thing X is going to cause very large problems and practically no one is going to use it correctly.

[gregates]

Unfortunately, "X is just a tool and is super useful when used properly, all things are both bad in excess and good in moderation, what you gonna do?" is exactly the type of conclusion that a chat bot is likely to reach. Doesn't really say anything, appears to express sophistication and wisdom by being more "nuanced" than an actual position, demands nothing of your audience, not likely to get downvotes on social media, etc.

[MSFT_Edging]

Proper use of anything that has a big downside is in direct opposition to making money, sadly.

[bloppe]

This is true if you're only looking at the short term. In the long term, quality does matter.

[pjc50]

I don't think the "tool weakening" discourse is strong enough: it overlooks the aversarial nature of the modern internet. There are humans actively intending to weaken you for various reasons, either to sell you stuff or to weaken you ideologically by making you hate other humans such as in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45848215

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45845772 "meta predicted 10% of revenue came from scams"

[afavour]

Yes, IMO this is going to start becoming visible sooner rather than later. College students that defer to ChatGPT to form arguments for them are going to graduate, sit for an in-person job interview and discover they haven't had to think fast, with their own brain, in years. It won't be pretty.

[ryandrake]

But who is going to crack first? Will job applicants somehow remove their borg implants and learn to think on their own? Or will businesses give in and admit that nobody can think for themselves anymore, allowing applicants to use ChatGPT during their interviews (knowing that they're probably going to need to use it on the job, too).

[jimbokun]

Or businesses just use ChatGPT to replace the entry level employee.

[daveguy]

I can't wait for the first company to do this. I hope someone comes around to do a good post mortem from the rubble.

[PetitPrince]

Steve Jobs "bicycle for the mind" analogy is more potent than I initially thought.

When got past the bicycle phase where we augment our body with technology but still leave room for our body to improve. We got into the automobile phase where only the goal matter and the body is not participating (and improving) anymore.

(well, except maybe for F1 which are bona fide athlete, but your average driver in a traffic jam is most certainly not a F1 driver)

[brailsafe]

> You can use a wheelchair to get everywhere, but your leg muscles will start to wither

Although it's not to the same degree of atrophy, I've been thinking of cars the same way. They're too easy to use once you have them, just press the pedal, so you stop walking and everything becomes a matter of driving distance, which makes it acceptable to distribute commercial activity in stupid little pockets of car destinations and avenues separated from each other by noise, pollution, and danger. People may not physically atrophy to the point of having no leg muscles, but their tolerance for walking a km becomes much more strained and their appreciation for investment in public transport lessens. They don't see or speak to people as much because they're always in their portable silo. You burn less calories, it's easier to gain weight, and people discount the value in having a gym within walking distance.

It's tough to reconcile it with being a functional tool, because although I could conceivably use it as one and buy one, I know that it can become an addiction.

[webspinner]

Sure thing, sometimes it's fun! I suppose that's because I'm a thrillseeker. Let's see how fast it gets up to is a test. That wouldn't be the case if I were driving.

[brailsafe]

In the wheelchair? Do you bomb hills in it?

[webspinner]

I'm actually not lol! IF I were I would, most likely!

[Barrin92]

>You can use a wheelchair to get everywhere, but your leg muscles will start to wither

I don't know if they still exists but there was a (Dutch, I think) company that makes non-electric lifts and tools for elderly people at home that require muscle effort from the people using them. Purely augmentative tools that don't work without input.

And that is how it needs to be. Framing this as choice is already wrong. Any tool that is agnostic or conducive to forfeiting agency will be used in wrong ways. It's not enough to make the healthy part optional, your brain will not be in the driver seat given how human beings work.

People in Japan are slim with no spending while people in the US remain obese while spending billions exactly because to the Japanese this isn't a choice, it's one the environment makes for them. If you rely on people "keeping themselves honest" you've already lost.

[daveguy]

I believe you are thinking of the Vertiwalk lift:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqHWDt5wRk

[api]

Ancient Egyptians on writing:

"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them."

https://www.anthologialitt.com/post/the-god-thoth-and-the-in...

This discourse is as old as humanity. Every tool makes us stronger but also paradoxically weaker.

[tharne]

> This discourse is as old as humanity. Every tool makes us stronger but also paradoxically weaker.

Of course that statement is true for every tool, but what's missing from the discussion is whether the trade off is worth it. Even truly terrible things have benefits. Smoking cigarettes makes it easier to maintain a healthy weight, this is well documented. Smoking has also been shown to reduce anxiety in some people. The negative consequences that cigarettes introduce, however, are so horrific that no one in their right mind would recommend that someone take up smoking, even if there are some demonstrable benefits to it.

[webspinner]

I do not believe generative AI has any benefits whatsoever! If it does, I have yet to discover them. It may be a benefit to everyone here which is great, but i would say that it's better to spare it.

[tharne]

The more I use AI, the more I'm convinced you're probably right.

[webspinner]

Lol I refuse to use it most of the time. If I want to test it, I do. I probably shouldn't do this, because it's keeping all data! It's good for some casual fun sometimes, I usually navigate away after I'm finished though.

[paddleon]

Curious if we could test/compare (popluation-level) memory skills before/after writing was introduced to the population.

I want to say "I remember things better when I write them down", and because I think I'm a smart person I think my memory is good.

I don't know how well I'd remember things if I'd spent a large portion of my life building memorization skills. Maybe I could be 100x better at memory if I exercised it more?

[api]

You could theoretically do it with uncontacted tribes that don't practice writing, but in practice it'd be very very hard to establish a scenario to administer such a test, especially ethically.

Even then it would be a bad study because you'd have an extremely narrow biased sample with a very specific culture. It'd be impossible to separate out cultural or genetic differences.

[Liquix]

there seems to be a parallel with the industrial revolution - being fit and having muscles used to be the norm when everyone worked the fields all day. but now that grocery stores and sedentary jobs have made exercise optional. so choosing to pursue fitness signals to others that one is disciplined, takes pride in their appearance, etc.

i can see the next couple generations of AI agents causing the same effect on reading, critical thinking, and intelligence in general. thinking is no longer necessary with AI agents, so maybe cultivating one's ability to think will become optional/personal pursuits which send similar signals.

[port11]

I noticed this in myself and had a pang of disgust at myself. I used to write almost daily, but with the baby we've had there hasn't been time. So recently when I was thinking of getting back on it, I went testing several writing helpers that are LLM-powered. I think it took me a few days to realise I was only doing it because it's easier and “everyone is doing it”. Like, I write for pleasure, why the hell do I need to automate part of the process?