This kinda gets philosophy-of-cognative-science-ey, but it kinda smells like “measuring a fish by its tree climbing ability”. Or maybe like goodharts law.
There are many different kinds of smart, is the kind of smart they’re measuring the one that will be relevant?
Again, I don’t want to carry too much water for AI, but I also don’t want to propagate arguments that also apply to other tools I like. Consider: externalizing memory. Without the tool you used to capture that memory, you’re completely unable to function. Dependency on it reduces your ability to remember things yourself. By many measures, it makes your dumber and less productive. But I wouldn’t personally consider taking notes to be detrimental.
So I want to be very careful when we make claims that externalizing some aspect of our cognition makes us worse somehow.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that we’re all working with the limited currencies of time and our own processing bandwidth and that tradeoffs that shift those resources to activities we value more can still be net positives even if a widely valued skill is taking a loss.
Is using GPS making me worse at on-the-fly navigation? Yes. Am I willing to make that tradeoff to free up that brain power for better experiencing my surroundings, listening to an audiobook, etc. while also getting basically a sixth sense of awareness about traffic, obstructions, etc.? Also, absolutely yes. (I do try to temper the loss in several ways though.)
I use (local) LLMs semi-frequently, and I think “net positive” usage of them is definitely possible, but it requires a few things: 1) Be self-aware enough to recognize the tradeoffs you’re making. 2) Be tech and math literate enough to at least have a surface level understanding of how they work, so your tradeoffs are informed. (And yes, I’m aware the vast majority of LLM users do not adhere to either.)
Books and calculators externalise skills that we see as tedious, like memorisation and calculation. LLMs externalise skills that we value in and of themselves, like decision making, art, and socialisation.
Would you rather live with people who can’t memorise dates and perform arithmetic? Or people who can’t make a decision or write a beautiful story?
This kinda gets philosophy-of-cognative-science-ey, but it kinda smells like “measuring a fish by its tree climbing ability”. Or maybe like goodharts law.
There are many different kinds of smart, is the kind of smart they’re measuring the one that will be relevant?
Again, I don’t want to carry too much water for AI, but I also don’t want to propagate arguments that also apply to other tools I like. Consider: externalizing memory. Without the tool you used to capture that memory, you’re completely unable to function. Dependency on it reduces your ability to remember things yourself. By many measures, it makes your dumber and less productive. But I wouldn’t personally consider taking notes to be detrimental.
So I want to be very careful when we make claims that externalizing some aspect of our cognition makes us worse somehow.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that we’re all working with the limited currencies of time and our own processing bandwidth and that tradeoffs that shift those resources to activities we value more can still be net positives even if a widely valued skill is taking a loss.
Is using GPS making me worse at on-the-fly navigation? Yes. Am I willing to make that tradeoff to free up that brain power for better experiencing my surroundings, listening to an audiobook, etc. while also getting basically a sixth sense of awareness about traffic, obstructions, etc.? Also, absolutely yes. (I do try to temper the loss in several ways though.)
I use (local) LLMs semi-frequently, and I think “net positive” usage of them is definitely possible, but it requires a few things: 1) Be self-aware enough to recognize the tradeoffs you’re making. 2) Be tech and math literate enough to at least have a surface level understanding of how they work, so your tradeoffs are informed. (And yes, I’m aware the vast majority of LLM users do not adhere to either.)
Who here knows how to hunt? Any caveman would call us stupid.
Books and calculators externalise skills that we see as tedious, like memorisation and calculation. LLMs externalise skills that we value in and of themselves, like decision making, art, and socialisation.
Would you rather live with people who can’t memorise dates and perform arithmetic? Or people who can’t make a decision or write a beautiful story?
These other things were also once valued.