> There is a study showing that doctors who use AI to help detect cancer become less skilled at detecting cancer without AI.
Not exactly an argument against using AI, is it? It's a bit like saying that GPS makes people worse at navigating by memory, which is true, but also not a strong argument for going back to paper maps. I feel the discourse is more about "stop using AI" and less about "how can we ensure our backup skills doesn't disappear".
We should keep some people around who can read paper maps (and keep paper maps around too). We need to keep doctors around who can keep working without a computer. It's a civilization threatening issue not to. There might be plenty reasons, from natural disasters, to self-inflicted "geopolitics", when we suddenly have to take a technological step back, and it's in our interest to maintain "30-50 years ago" level of tech possible, so that we don't have to start all over from something resembling a bronze age.
Definite agree on having human-based redundant systems.
But I think the point the parent commenter made is: if there's not a functional difference in the result (i.e., job satisfies the definition of done), it doesn't matter if the AI generated the code or did the diagnosis.
But I think it's also fair to say that the process matters, even if the result is the same. If something exists for our benefit (e.g., there's no real alternative to learning-by-doing, and people need to know stuff for safety/security reasons), and we're fine with the trade-off, there's no reason to just give up the process to the AI.
Not exactly an argument against using AI, is it? It's a bit like saying that GPS makes people worse at navigating by memory, which is true, but also not a strong argument for going back to paper maps. I feel the discourse is more about "stop using AI" and less about "how can we ensure our backup skills doesn't disappear".