[kiba]

I don't know what AI native folks will look like. To me, it looks like just replacing skilled labors with unskilled labors as opposed to giving humans new skills.

AI to me will be valuable when it's helping humans learn and think more strategically and when they're actually teaching humans or helping humans spot contradiction and vetting for reliable information. Fact checking is extremely labor intensive work after all.

Or otherwise if AI is so good, just replace humans.

Right now, the most legible use of AI is AI slop and misinformation.

[sothatsit]

The skilled AI users are the people that use it to help them learn and think problems through in more detail.

Unskilled AI users are people who use AI to do their thinking for them, rather than using it as a work partner. This is how people end up producing bad work because they fundamentally don’t understand the work themselves.

[graemefawcett]

This is the right attitude.

GenAI isn't a thinking machine, as much it might pretend to be. It's a theatre kid that's really motivated to help you and memorized the Internet.

Work with them. Let them fill in your ideas with extra information, sure, but they have to be your ideas. And you're going to have to put some work into it, the "hallucinations" are just your intent incompletely specified.

They're going to give you the structure, that's high probability fruit. It's the guts of it that has to be fully formed in the context before the generative phase can start. You can't just ask for a business plan and then get upset when the one it gives you is full of nonsense.

Ever heard the phrase "ask a silly question, get a silly answer"?