[soulofmischief]

Terrible thinking? Delegating thinking to mediocrity machines? "Previously" smart people? I don't think you can project your own limited and malformed understanding of the world any harder. Please go touch grass and learn how to engage with others on the internet without being so negative.

[camillomiller]

Terrible thinking:

yes, it's just bad thinking. It's a malformed comparison that misunderstands the conversation.

Delegating thinking to mediocrity machines:

Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math, LLMs are by definition mediocrity-producing machines, especially if you understand the etymology of mediocre.

Previously smart people:

Cognitive atrophy in people overrelying on LLMs and agents seems to be inevitable: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...

Maybe my understanding of the word is limited and malformed, or maybe you could try to develop one that takes into consideration the humanities, art, the sublime, love, emotions, and everything that makes humans human, instead of looking at the world through the small, mechanistic lens of the hyperengineerization of everything.

[soulofmischief]

> It's a malformed comparison that misunderstands the conversation

I invite you to explain how, instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.

> Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math, LLMs are by definition mediocrity-producing mac

You're demonstrating a fundamental failure to understand the mathematics behind these models, by claiming that they produce an average result by nature. You fundamentally misunderstand reasoning manifolds, and how training teaches models new behaviors.

Phrases like "Based on the statistical nature of their underlying math" sure make you sound smart to someone who doesn't know better, but in truth the phrase is completely void of substance: What statistical nature? What underlying math? What about them prove your naive hypothesis that they can only produce "mediocrity", itself an extremely subjective term that leaves you a massive amount of slack with which you can retreat from your claims after someone asks for proof and clarification.

> Cognitive atrophy in people overrelying on LLMs and agents seems to be inevitable

I can pull studies that show reading and writing reduce some cognitive faculties, compared to oral tradition. Or how the use of calculators atrophies basic arithmetic skills: that's not going to stop astrophysicists from using number-crunching simulations instead of doing things by hand.

> maybe you could try to develop one that takes into consideration the humanities, art, the sublime, love, emotions, and everything that makes humans human, instead of looking at the world through the small, mechanistic lens of the hyperengineerization of everything.

Hey, so you're projecting again here. Massively. Nothing about this conversation has given you any information regarding my opinions on the list of extremely subjective and debatable concepts you've provided. You seem to harbor a belief that anyone who extracts meaningful value from these machines is actually a "terrible thinker" who is inconsiderate of the world and only sees things through a "small, mechanistic lens". Besides being considerably insulting, all this projection does is reveal things about how you view the world, how you view those who think differently than you, and how close-minded you can be, prejudiciously writing off someone as a caricatured personal bias in order to avoid critically engaging with their argument.

Honestly, this is a really sad and negative way to talk with others on the internet and you need to stop and review your approach to discourse. There is no value in considering to waste time talking to you until you change your attitude, so I'm going to end the conversation.