| > In my mind, it's pretty simple: I'm a human, LLMs are not. If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. In my mind, it's pretty simple too and not dissimilar to what you say: we've got cognition, LLMs don't. When a human writes a novel, it doesn't look like a novel because the human has been trained by reading every single novel ever written in every single human language out there. The human doesn't imitate the act of writing a novel: the human just writes a novel. > But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? Really not much. The IQ of an oyster more or less. But the LLM is not thinking, so it's not possible to "offload your thinking". But tbh those who believe these LLMs are thinking machines and that it's normal to offload "thinking" to those non-thinking machines probably don't have very deep thoughts anyway. So nothing of value is lost. P.S: I happily not one but three AI subscriptions and use LLMs daily to code. Which is probably why I'm such a critic of AI. They're both useful and pathetically bad. They really write crappy code. |