8 ms·

I don't know if this is a good framing. "Too much" is subjective, and every heavy AI user will assert that they're just unlocking their potential, that calculat

I don't know if this is a good framing. "Too much" is subjective, and every heavy AI user will assert that they're just unlocking their potential, that calculators didn't make us dumber, etc. 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? We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products. So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote? You're standing in front of a token-generating machine, pulling a lever, sometimes receiving gifts. Is that your edge, your unique experience, your purpose in life? Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again? 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. I want to support that. And I want to be a human who can write novels, the old-fashioned way. I'm not good at lifting weights or running, so my thinking is the only thing I have.

abhinav_sk 2mo ago
Taking the context of raising children, the ‘unique contribution’ of a lot of parents is traumatising their kids. If it’s helping us make better decisions, I don’t see how that could be worse. I think that translates to all the non creative things you spoke about.
jvanderbot 2mo ago
Have you read the "Whispering earring" essay? I love it for the LLM era.[1] You can treat AI as a whispering earring - "What should we do now? How do we fix this? What do you think?" Or you can treat it like an exoskelton - "Implement kd-tree with metric space xyz for this problem, mapping this to that blah blah". That's pre-thought execution automation that makes review much simpler - you already know the shape of the desired output. The whispering earring is atrophy. 1. https://croissanthology.com/earring https://croissanthology.com/earring
- jeromechoo 2mo ago
  Wow what a read! Thanks for sharing. Really helped me unpack why I’m so bothered by people who c/p AI answers verbatim.
  - snapetom 2mo ago
    I did a code review for a really, let's just say "challenging", co-worker a few years ago. There was one block of code that was really obtuse and I couldn't figure out why it was there and what it did. So I asked him. He sighed like he was taking responsibility for a grave sin and I should admire him for it, and said, "I don't know. I copied that from StackOverflow." I've felt that AI is just an amplification of what we've all done and been through with SO answers.
    - jeromechoo 2mo ago
      It certainly makes it all the easier for people predisposed to this quality of work.
    - pmarreck 2mo ago
      I have learned the hard way that "corpo code" is ephemeral. I spent at least 2 man-years on Ruby/Rails code for Desk.com, once spending an entire month to solve a really bad and intermittent session-logout issue that stumped 8 developers before me (I could tell because they left a bunch of commented-out debug code and I had the git-blame lines), and after I left, that whole stack got retired and its clients moved to some garbage Salesforce offering as part of their crufty Java monolith. (Sorry, SFDC.) So if we move from "bespoke handcrafted code" to "roughly-engineered, unstylish but still quite working LLM-generated code" in that space, there is LITERALLY no love lost. Spend your handcrafted love-energy on open-source or library code that will stick around. Leave the corpo code to the LLMs, I say, especially if you don't own it.
    - baranul 2mo ago
      Way too many people like to reach for the easiest path. They will often assume or have blind faith that the AI or online answer is correct. Coming up with the solution themselves or taking time to understand why something might be the correct answer, can be just too much work to be bothered with.
slibhb 2mo ago
> 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. While I appreciate you laying it out so plainly, I disagree. A novel is a bunch of words and I don't care if they were written by one person, five, an AI, or infinite monkeys on typewriters. What's valuable in a novel (or a poem) is in the words.
- drdeca 2mo ago
  I think there is both value that comes from the work being authored by a human, and value which does not?
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  I care because it’s not personal, it’s not informed by lived experience, etc. It has no meaning. AI “novels” are just facsimiles of other people’s writings assembled in a way that appears new, but ultimately it’s just an approximation of a person writing a book. Their’s no author intent or context of any kind to consider. It removes core pillars of experiencing literature. I don’t want a mathematical approximation of writing informed by feelings, knowledge, experiences, etc. anymore than I would want to see an “AI band” perform just because the music is supposedly great. There’s no personality, there’s nothing personal period.
  - horsawlarway 2mo ago
    while I understand this argument - I think it consistently falls down when compared to the types of content that are generally purchased and consumed. I'd argue that most folks get plenty of value from the content itself, entirely separate from the intent, context, or even existence of the author. I don't care about the motivations of the director to enjoy an action movie. I don't care about the life history of the author to enjoy a good fiction. I think there is (and should be) space for content where people care, but I'd suggest it's the fringes (ex - majority of music is production grade pop, not meaningful songs, majority of books sales are erotic fiction, etc).
    - Forgeties79 2mo ago
Wilsoniumite 2mo ago
"What's your unique contribution to the world" is a good question, and I've been thinking about it a lot. One framing I very much like is thinking about the priceable versus unpriceable contributions of a person. As an example, your software engineering ability is priceable (it's your labor). Your value to your parents isn't priceable. The problem is, right now the default assumed value of the latter is 0. Our society only tries to put a value on priceable facets of a person. There's reasons for that, wisdom of the crowds and whatnot, but of course it also means that if an AI can do that thing, economics drives society to adopt AI over employing people. It's possible to set that latter value to be nonzero. You can't use free markets to set it because they necessarily cannot see what price to set, so you kinda have to guess, but IMO, it isn't zero, and I'd hazard to say it's positive.
- amarant 2mo ago
  Silly nitpick but the free market absolutely can, and has in the past, put a monetary (positive)value on your person. We have of course abolished slavery since then. Which is a weird way of saying I don't think we necessarily should put a monetary value to people. Instead we need to realize that money isn't everything in life. So much of life is unpriceable, and that's as it should be. Attempting to price the unpriceable necessarily makes a mockery of the unpriceable thing.
- hsb3 2mo ago
  You guys have to look up where the concept of Dignity came from.
athrowaway3z 2mo ago
> 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. .... What? You open up with the calculator argument. Great. Then state "on the flip side". Ok. And then declare it very simple in your mind when there is _only_ the flip side. The whole issue is the not-simple gray area and where each of us believes the line between empowered human and brainless idiot is drawn.
elmer2 2mo ago
"Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again?" Many of the LLM maximalists I know don't have the skills or knowledge to excel in technology and need to use LLMs to do their job. It's seen as a cheat code to get work done. As an example, A person I went to high school with that could barely figure out how to setup a Drupal site a few years ago, is now a frontier engineer at an AI startup. His Linkedin posts are filled with AI buzz words on a daily basis. "It's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. " At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI.
- MisterTea 2mo ago
  > At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI. So what if its indistinguishable - its not a product of human intellect or effort. I feel there is a large disconnect where people look at artful output such as music or writing as a thing no different than a box of paper clips. To them, "It's just there." They don't care how it got there, they just like the feeling they get from the consumption. That's fast food thinking; It's engineered to be "tasty" in the sense that they put the right amount of chemicals into the food to tickle the right nerve endings. It's junk food that exists to turn a profit. Whereas even the local diner puts effort into its food and has a damn fine Greek menu and the best mozzarella sticks.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    If you knew how the modern music industry and local diners work, you might not be so impressed. It's not all artisanal, made with love goodness just because human hands did it.
    - ericfr11 2mo ago
      But the AI would not be able to perform live on a stage, producing emotions. I can't imagine staying 3 hours in a crowded room looking at a robot or a computer screen, even if it produces great music. Or if we get to that point, what gives the right and permission for humans to exist anymore?
parl_match 2mo ago
> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. I want to support that I'd extend on this as well: the process of creating changes you. In a technical sense, where you approach a problem and the way you solve that problem informs you. Both your problem solving skills, creative skills, but also even understanding how a compromise works. This is why I have minimal compunction about an experienced engineer using AI-assisted coding ("hey claude, define this data class") versus finding AI-art to be repugnant. The act of creating an artistic work is both an expression, but also the act of ideating and then executing on that changes you. Experience, emotion, and other more intangible concepts.
- dmarcos 2mo ago
  I mostly agree with you but, how do you square the use of other types of automation that are not AI? e.g computer animation vs hand-drawn, CAD software for engineering and architecture… Are those lesser art forms or we’re just used to them?
  - parl_match 2mo ago
    I don't have enough experience in those fields to really firm up a judgement from my perspective. The act of creation not just creates, it informs you. For example, when placing a wall with CAD for architecture, maybe you realize that some walls on an non-level roof have visually unappealing or difficult wall/roof joints. And then you consider that for future designs? Or you pause and think further about how a person interacts with that room. You can see how the act of creation delivered meaningful feedback to you, as a person. IDK that's just an example I could come up with, you should really ask an architect or ID guy
- wincy 2mo ago
  I use AI to make songs and pictures for my friends. I barely even listen to music that I didn’t have a hand in making. It’s my favorite genre by far. My kids too. Personalized studio quality songs all day, every day. I suddenly have the power and time to make things I enjoy. I think there’s going to be a hollowing out that’s going to happen where we might not have another Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift or famous musicians because why bother when you can just listen to your own custom tailored tunes. All that matters to me is that I like the song. I don’t care if someone built a custom keyboard or did it on a Stradivarius violin.
mrctte 2mo ago
> I'm not good at lifting weights or running, so my thinking is the only thing I have I'm not saying this to be snarky, but maybe it's time to work on lifting weights and running. The worth of a novel is, of course, subjective, but most people would judge it based on the entertainment value it provides and not how much human effort went into it. Hobbies like fitness (which don't have an output that's meant to be consumed) seem like a safer harbor in this new era.
- BHSPitMonkey 2mo ago
  I was going to say, neither of those forms of exercise are expressions of a natural talent... they're things you simply do (at whatever levels you can currently manage) to stay healthy. They're good for your mental state, too! (And I could stand to do both a bit more regularly...)
hellisothers 2mo ago
Focusing just on AI wrt our work (let’s say software engineering for now) and letting go the other items. I see a like when this comes up the story is if the AI is doing the arch/impl then what are you even doing anymore? That is honestly not where my value add is, many people can do those two things plenty well, it’s basically commoditized at this point (at a certain experience level). What I bring is all the soft skills and intuition to glue it together and ship and maintain it. Let the impl go.
hoppp 2mo ago
Just live your life and don't support the AI machine. Nobody is forcing you, your life quality might get much better and you live your life as an intelligent person. On the other side, people pushing the intelligence is for losers narrative are already too stupid to create anything that benefits humanity or the planet, so might as well ignore them.
Aurornis 2mo ago
> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again? We had some contractors at the house doing some work. The contractors had been doing this work for a long time. I could tell they were good at what they did because I had some experience with that type of work when I was younger and they were way better than me. We ran into an unusual situation (old house, old building techniques, overlapping old renovations) that they had never seen before. The contractors pulled up ChatGPT and started chatting with it. Eventually they came up with a solution with some good materials and techniques to make it work without turning it into a bigger tear out and complete rebuild project, and they got quick links to confirm it matched code. This worked because they had the experience to judge the accuracy of the answers. They still checked the claims against the description of the materials we needed to order. After they did the work they had the experience to do it again, and it didn’t take them any guessing, trial and error, or searching through forums or Facebook groups (which are very popular with contractors) to get advice. This is the right way to benefit from LLMs in learning something: Get the information then put it into practice so you learn it. I worry when I see someone claim to learn something from an LLM but then the next turn is having the LLM do the work. It’s like skimming a math textbook but then skipping the exercises and never doing any quizzes. Every student in school learns that you have to practice to really understand something because reading the words is not enough. You have to work through it to internalize it. LLMs can be very powerful tools in this way. They can also trick people into thinking they’re learning when they’re not. I think everyone has to go through that learning process about how to learn all over again like we all did with calculators in elementary school. There will be a lot of people who get trapped into being LLM promoters, whose output ceiling is limited by what LLMs can do as limited by their ability to recognize what’s right and wrong. By now, almost everyone can think of someone they know who is happy to turn their brain off and press enter in Claude until it says the task is complete. I worry how this is going to intersect with the Reddit generation who grew up consuming doomer content about how jobs are just “bullshit jobs” and how your goal should be to do as little as possible at work, because there will come a time where those who spent their careers offloading their thinking to LLMs without doing the hard work of learning will not have much compelling reason to be hired over any other intern who can prompt Claude. On the long term view I can see a lot of the LLM prompters getting replaced by LLMs doing the prompting. On social media like Reddit you can already see a lot of people gloating about how they just copy from Jira into Claude, push a PR, and then have Claude handle code review from their peers while they do nothing. Not hard to see that someone like that isn’t doing much that couldn’t be done by going one level deeper with Claude and letting it automate that person away. You have to put in some work to stay valuable.
njarboe 2mo ago
The same was probably said when machines started making furniture, cloth, harvesting wheat, etc. A desk made custom by a human to your specs is cool, beautiful, and life giving for both involved. And will cost $10-$50k. Maybe with the AIs and robots doing the grunt work, humans could get back to building things for each other. That would be great but I'm not sure what percentage of people are interested in that though.
dismalaf 2mo ago
> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? "Many book maximalists say they read books to learn new things, but to what effect?" First we had verbal transmission, then books, then the Internet, now LLMs. And they all kind of do the same thing. For me, the value of an LLM is it can take my imprecise query, scour its memory AND the Internet, and then return an answer (with citations if you ask) quicker than I can look for it "manually". And I'm far from an LLM maximalist...
embedding-shape 2mo ago
> We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products. My first thoughts were around trying to understand why these people would do that. What I see a lot around me, is people being afraid to fail, as it's some inherently dumb and bad thing, not realizing that sometimes failing is what makes you learn enough so you don't fail later, or builds resilience in other ways that later will be useful, for others or for yourself. Avoiding the path of harsh failure will put you down the path of mediocrity.
- netsharc 2mo ago
  It's passing the buck, isn't it, if I ask AI and AI tells me something dumb, I can blame AI and absolve myself of responsibility. At the same time, the troubling allure is that the machine has ingested a million books and has better knowledge than me (e.g. in things like JavaScript or Japanese), so why not trust it about how to raise kids.
Izkata 2mo ago
> But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. Except calculators have been a problem for decades, it's why they're not allowed in school when you're still learning. Without doing the math yourself and internalizing how it works, you won't develop the number sense to tell if the result makes sense (broken calculator, typo, wrong equation, etc). I still remember my physics teacher using one of the student's test answers as an example of how he should have known it was wrong and gone back over it (I think it was a pendulum on an elevator, his result had negative gravity (so gravity going upwards)).
- nicbou 2mo ago
  We had exams where the calculator was allowed, because we were tested on our ability to type in the right calculations. The calculator wouldn't save you.
  - kurthr 2mo ago
    Even in the 80s HPs would do derivatives (and simple integrals). But, open book tests are the worst, nothing could save you! I still remember giving Mathematica a relational equation of the atomic radius expectation values for it to integrate by parts and collect terms... at the time it failed to find the right integrating factor and gave gibberish. Probably works now.
    - rescbr 2mo ago
      I had a professor who polled the class if we preferred our exams to be open book or not. First year of undergrad. The midterm was open book, he even shared the previous year's exams. The final, as expected, closed book, thank you very much.
- kurthr 2mo ago
  If you can't work in order of magnitude calculations and estimations you're not going to last long in physics. Many useful models give good answers only within a certain range of inputs, while at the same time you often can tell where in a dynamic space you are by external observations. For example, estimating Martian wind speed within a factor of 3x from the size of the sand dunes, can be done having only seen pictures and with only the knowledge of a few dimensionless parameters. That's also how you can tell if your calculator is "lying" to you (or you typed wrong). I guess I have a few similar tools in spaces where I'm more experienced to see when "hallucinations" and gibberish are being generated by LLMs. Of course having it "check sources" and evaluate its own solutions sometimes also works, if those are reliable, but you're on the hairy edge at that point.
jrozner 2mo ago
Most people only do the simplest of math on a day to day basis. I’d bet that if you asked most adults to do something even remotely non-trivial (addition, subtraction, multiplication) a lot would have trouble without a calculator and/or make a large number of mistakes. That’s probably fine because it’s unlikely most adults are all of a sudden going to have to do non-trivial math without a calculator. That probably isn’t the case for people who are having agents do effectively everything for them in their lives
budsniffer952 2mo ago
>We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products It's not either/or. I think about designing a product in conjunction with AI "thinking" about it. Two heads are better than one.
- dolebirchwood 2mo ago
  >We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships Anyone who's spent time in professions in or adjacent to social work would say that a lot of their clients would frankly be better off outsourcing these decisions to LLMs.
raincole 2mo ago
> So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote Why not? You're implying writing good prompts doesn't require effort or thought, which is false to me. > Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again? To write better prompt is a good reason to learn new things. It's so obvious that more knowledge and experience you have, the better results you get from LLMs.
purav0788 2mo ago
I don't relate with this at all, are you saying that founders who execute through employees are not creating anything by "themselves", they have no "unique contribution"? Most of us just want to create great products and hopefully get paid for them. And at the end, if I create a great product through this method, I feel equally happy, who wants to grind for a decade over some manual software creation process ?
- eCa 2mo ago
  > most of us *some of us. This is one of the differentiators (can’t find a better word right now). Some became software developers because they enjoy(ed) the process. Some became software developers because that was the way to make products that made money. Neither is more correct or genuine than the other, but neither can also claim to be a significant majority.
nathias 2mo ago
LLMs are bicycles for the mind, they do not think instead of you
- WolfeReader 2mo ago
  Bicycles don't consume the energy of a small nation.
  - nathias 2mo ago
    I'm not sure how much does the total production of bicycles consume, but I don't see how it's relevant for the use.
asdff 2mo ago
The calculator argument is interesting because I am for sure slower at arithmetic by hand than when I was in gradeschool able to rattle off times tables and long division and what not, due to calculator use. I know plenty of other people who can’t easily do basic math, like multiplying something by 1.5x as a recent example in my life. Their gradeschool self probably would also run laps around them.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
ah1508 2mo ago
> calculators didn't make us dumber For most people, GPS did not improve sense of direction, spellchecking did not help to write without making mistake, deepl did not help to be better in foreign languages. But replacing a bicycle by a motorcycle forces to acquire new skills without losing any, and we can find many example of symbiosis between "The man and the machine" (Lindbergh wrote a book named "WE"). AI could be something like that, after all it is human knowledge reachable in a conversational and contextual manner. So AI can be used to learn: "tell me what's wrong in my code, or if it can be improved". I also tend to think that the more we code, the more we give AI valuable piece of knowledge to learn from, the best code it can produce, the less the produced code seems alien. It can be a win/win, all depend on the mindset. I like to code and even if I am skeptical about many aspects of AI I can share the workload with a robot, as an exercise or if the time or budget is constrained.
theturtletalks 2mo ago
> is it the prompt you once wrote? Yes, but also the prompts you give after, and the iterations you continue to do. Art is rarely something you build once and forget about. A lot of that going on in AI no doubt, but the builders who polish their work and strive for perfection are still the builders they were before AI. You mention the novel writer and yes that person who's great at writing novels will create great art. But the ones that are 80% of the way their, but maybe can't nail the ending, or segue into different plot-lines, can now create great art and have AI get them there. Subconsciously, they will get better at those things by using AI and seeing the result. I'm always reminded of that I, Robot scene where the scientist says "you must ask the right questions." And that is true now more than ever.
obscurette 2mo ago
> calculators didn't make us dumber I think that most of people misunderstand what calculator changed. Calculator didn't replace people doing math, calculator replaced mathematical tables, slide rulers and other already existing devices. And regarding making people dumber ... Math teachers who saw this change said that there was a clear shift – students started to think less critically. With slide rulers and tables you had to think about answers – significant figures etc – with calculators you don't.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- Tubelord 2mo ago
  You still have to think about significant figures with calculators I used. Most will produce an irrational number result with as many insignificant digits that will fit on the display.
  - obscurette 2mo ago
    Only with final answer, if you have to round etc. With slide rulers and tables you had to think about it with every step, where to put your decimal separator etc.
- ColdStream 2mo ago
  One could argue that those who think calculators didn't make themselves dumb cannot be the judge of that. Cannot be the claimant, defendant and judge all at the same time. I would say that calculators definitely reduced my more simplistic mathematics skills but did open up some more advanced stuff. I wouldn't say it was a gain or a loss, just depends on what your needs are.
murukesh_s 2mo ago
it's the gut bacteria that is left. lol, that hunger, that emotion, that sense of intuition. Without emotions we are just a naturally evolved LLM.
ClikeX 2mo ago
The thing with calculator argument that always gets me. I do math unconsciously all the time. Even something as simple as adjusting a recipe when cooking. I don't need to grab a device to do that, I just do the quick math in my head. And the only way I can do that is because I learned how to do math. And even with a calculator, I still needed to know what to calculate. The argument "we don't need math, we have a calculator" assumes you always get a textbook question that lays it out for you. Same goes for LLMs. I can use them for programming, and they're very convenient. But I still need to know what to ask it and make sure it stays within the confines of what I want. And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. Naturally, this assumes a workflow where you do actually look and modify the output yourself. But I'd argue that any non tech person is inevitably going to hit a wall where they can't debug themselves out of without getting a human involved.
- abalashov 2mo ago
  Underrated and paradoxical element of this, to which, as far as I can tell, LLM boosters offer no solution: > And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs effectively. It's not that I think the physiokinetic aspects of typing as an input mechanism hold some metaphysical distinction, but rather the level of engagement it forces with the code, and the units in which it does so. I'm not aware as yet of any viable replacement for that. It's easy to trade on decades of software engineering experience with LLMs: with sufficient experience, everything goes around and comes around, almost any pattern is recognisable, the gratification is immediate, the benefits are now, while the costs and disasters are down the road. However, the technology world is not static, and if you don't keep up with new frameworks, libraries, languages and other tech in that physical-mechanical "mind-body-keyboard" way that typing--or something substantially close to it--accomplishes, you will lose the ability to navigate that world fluently. To say it's just another abstraction layer and that the world didn't crumble after compilers is to miss something quite essential about how LLMs differ from compilers or high-level languages. The disengagement with the process of physically programming something quite specific will take down with it the ability, over time, to formulate useful prompts and competently review the output.
JimsonYang 2mo ago
> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share But the market doesnt reward that. Different consumers different markets, but (using a salad analogy) overall consumers dont care how a salad is made, only whether it tastes good and is cheap
beloch 2mo ago
Just to leapfrog off of the calculator notion... There's a difference between capability and mastery. If you have a calculator, you are capable of doing basic arithmetic (probably). If you can do fairly complex arithmetic in your head, that's mastery. If all you need is capability, it's fair to say that acquiring mastery might be wasted effort. However, if you want to go on to do advanced math, physics, etc., then mastery of basic arithmetic, calculus, algebra, etc. are necessary stepping stones. If you have to go back to calculators, math programs, textbooks, etc. every time for basic things while trying to formulate and manipulate equations, you're going to have a very hard time getting along. Sure, rely on AI for things that you merely need as capabilities, but recognize that doing so prevents you from developing mastery required to progress to other things. If you don't want to progress to those things, then it's fine. If you do, then you should rethink your approach.
reinitctxoffset 2mo ago
I'm acutely aware that even 6-12 months off the keyboard is brutal to come back from, it's a real issue now because there are pockets of work where the agents can drive the whole thing. If you just autopilot there? The comprehension and skill debt becomes really hard to pay down in as little as a week or two for the really high complexity stuff. I try hard to keep a serious feature branch going on every project where I'm driving it in emacs or vscode or whatever. `gptel` is great for this because it can tool call for the docs, be a super search engine like Google used to be but you're keeping your reflexes up, keeping the comprehension debt under control. For me this is almost exactly like being in an EM role: it's so easy to lose track of the details, you have all these other demands on your time, there's pressure to grow headcount, and the costs of letting the skills slip is all but invisible for a while. But before you know it you're rubber stamping stuff you don't really grasp, you're not able to help people who are having trouble in the codebase, it's all bad. And depending on why you got into this business, it can become pretty joyless to be totally out of the loop. Now every engineer has to navigate this. It's going to be interesting.
TacticalCoder 2mo ago
> 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.
bsoles 2mo ago
> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? I would also argue that they use LLMs to learn "about" new things, but not really the thing itself. I, myself, learned a lot about complex SQL queries just recently using LLMs. But I really don't know how to write complex queries myself. People often confuse reading about a thing with knowing the thing.
brookst 2mo ago
Eh, not convinced. Certainly what works for you works for you. But the idea that “outsourcing” to experts is somehow detrimental is one of the modern tropes I can’t stand. And I’m not sure I believe there’s a material difference between e.g. reading research about raising children versus asking an LLM that is grounded in (and cites) that research. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I don’t think most of us have a unique contribution to the world. Emphasis on unique. So why not leverage all resources in the effort to maximize happiness for ourselves and those around us?
protocolture 2mo ago
>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? We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products. So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote? You're standing in front of a token-generating machine, pulling a lever, sometimes receiving gifts. Is that your edge, your unique experience, your purpose in life? Cognitive offloading seems to be a feature of humans, we do it with spouses and people we work with. I dont see why offloading some other stuff to an LLM is going to dehumanise someone.
- backwardsponcho 2mo ago
  When people interact with spouses and coworkers, it's still human-to-human interaction. There is a person on the other end. Not quite the same when your head doctor, DJ, gym coach, and nutritionist are the same sycophant machine who's eager to let you know how absolutely right you are.
  - protocolture 2mo ago
    >There is a person on the other end. Not sure why that matters tbh. Cognitive Offloading is a human ability. We built a tool that can be used with it in absence of another person. The argument seemed to be that Cognitive Offloading dehumanised a person, but now things have shifted to "Its only good with another human". If its worthwhile we will do it, if its not worthwhile we wont.
LelouBil 2mo ago
My take is that you learn math before learning how to use a calculator. And can understand what it does and reproduce it (slower) by hand if needed, but everyone is still using it for stuff we don't need to think about. If you use AI exactly like this I find no issue, but I fear most people are using the calculator without knowing the math and that's the real issue to me.
gumby 2mo ago
TBH, the calculator example isn’t an encouraging one. I use a calculator (these days N PP, or spotlight). But by the time I do that I already have an approximate ide of why the answer is, so if it’s way off, or the sign is wrong, I see it immediately. Same with GPS, though many folks have no idea how to navigate on their own anymore so often don’t notice when they’ve accidentally had a typo or chosen the wrong Springfield. So I find using an LLM can be useful when I already have an idea of that the problem is. At their request I reviewed a colleague’s plan for a project. I looked up some of the baseline parameters so I could understand the plan, than I made some comments w/questions about things I didn’t quite understand. A couple of minutes late for our morning mtg I came in while my colleague was saying that I had found a bunch of things that Claude had not. This is why they are bad news for new grads who haven’t yet learned the and pitfalls of their fields. And this was a senior person who just outsourced the work to the LLM.
zombot 2mo ago
> I'm not good at lifting weights or running, so my thinking is the only thing I have. Even if you were, the best you could hope for is a career in entertainment ("sports"). The necessity for bodily strength was abolished in the industrial revolution of the 1800s and 1900s. Now the maximalists predictably say we have another "industrial revolution" that makes our intellect redundant. I don't believe that but if it were true, the question what defines the value of a human would become even more pressing, with less leeway as to what the answer might be. H. G. Wells needed The Time Machine to find a world like that. Still, if enough people believe that LLMs do make our intellect redundant, it will trigger a cultural crisis similar to the one at the previous turn of the century when men struggled with their defining attribute (physical strength) being taken away by machines. The reverse centaur is over 100 years old, even if that name wasn't used then.
chungusamongus 2mo ago
This just sounds like the black and white fallacy ad nauseum. Like every sentence is constructed to frame the entire issue around a false binary. Like you assume that if "maximalists" use LLMs more than the average joe, they're not "thinking." Black and white. Either-or. Maximalists are hobbyists. They usually read up on the newest models, try out different ones, maybe even build pcs specifically to run local models. You honestly think they're not thinking as much as you? Also there is absolutely no reason to value "being unique" for its own sake. Unique people aren't walking around trying to avoid tech to max out their uniqueness potential. That's just neuroticism. It does seem to me as though a lot of people have this misplaced faith in humanism and it just feels like copium at this point. Worse yet, it honestly just seems like a way to dunk on those they perceive as conformists. So basically just a high school mall goth. You are not in a position to lecture other people about their purpose. Your brain is a pattern recognition machine just like everyone else. You've grown fond of some patterns you picked up on that emerged during the enlightenment and you seem to be just superficially regurgitating them, not unlike an LLM. Calculators made us dumber in the sense that we no longer have to perform mathematical operations on the fly. That gives us room to do something else. What other people do is up to them. That's what freedom is. You assume the maximalist is just sitting there prompting all day. If they are, whatever. That's their hobby. It’s not much different than playing video games all day. Either way, Im pretty sure their lives are filled with sadness and joy just like you and everyone else.
jknoepfler 2mo ago
Having learned math in an accelerated program that banned calculators, my experience has been that they do substantially diminish mathematical learning. They are useful for things like building an intuition about the behavior of functions... but ask a student to manually graph and compare the behavior of some fairly trivial functions ( ln x, 1/x, sqrt x, x^3 ) over the interval [0, 1] and you'll pretty quickly see the difference between kids who are trained to think for themselves and kids who aren't. The ability to engage with math "critically" is fundamental to being able to use it constructively/creatively. I think we're seeing the impact of LLMs more broadly in the drastic decline in incoming freshman academic competency levels, and will continue to observe people becoming measurably, meaningfully stupider until we clamp down on / outright ban LLM usage in education.
scotty79 2mo ago
> On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? If your answer is "not much", you gotta step up so that the answer is closer to "more than ever was". You dug the holes in the ground with a shovel your entire life. Suddenly somebody gifts you a digger, nearly for free. If your reaction to this is "what's left for me now? anyone could just pull levers, no strength or skill needed!" not, "I could dig so much more and deeper holes with this digger!" then you need to chill, reflect, then fight your fear and perverse laziness and learn how to become the best person to pull the levers.

abhinav_sk 2mo ago

Taking the context of raising children, the ‘unique contribution’ of a lot of parents is traumatising their kids. If it’s helping us make better decisions, I don’t see how that could be worse. I think that translates to all the non creative things you spoke about.

jvanderbot 2mo ago

Have you read the "Whispering earring" essay? I love it for the LLM era.[1] You can treat AI as a whispering earring - "What should we do now? How do we fix this? What do you think?" Or you can treat it like an exoskelton - "Implement kd-tree with metric space xyz for this problem, mapping this to that blah blah". That's pre-thought execution automation that makes review much simpler - you already know the shape of the desired output. The whispering earring is atrophy. 1. https://croissanthology.com/earring https://croissanthology.com/earring

jeromechoo 2mo ago
Wow what a read! Thanks for sharing. Really helped me unpack why I’m so bothered by people who c/p AI answers verbatim.
- snapetom 2mo ago
  I did a code review for a really, let's just say "challenging", co-worker a few years ago. There was one block of code that was really obtuse and I couldn't figure out why it was there and what it did. So I asked him. He sighed like he was taking responsibility for a grave sin and I should admire him for it, and said, "I don't know. I copied that from StackOverflow." I've felt that AI is just an amplification of what we've all done and been through with SO answers.
  - jeromechoo 2mo ago
    It certainly makes it all the easier for people predisposed to this quality of work.
  - pmarreck 2mo ago
    I have learned the hard way that "corpo code" is ephemeral. I spent at least 2 man-years on Ruby/Rails code for Desk.com, once spending an entire month to solve a really bad and intermittent session-logout issue that stumped 8 developers before me (I could tell because they left a bunch of commented-out debug code and I had the git-blame lines), and after I left, that whole stack got retired and its clients moved to some garbage Salesforce offering as part of their crufty Java monolith. (Sorry, SFDC.) So if we move from "bespoke handcrafted code" to "roughly-engineered, unstylish but still quite working LLM-generated code" in that space, there is LITERALLY no love lost. Spend your handcrafted love-energy on open-source or library code that will stick around. Leave the corpo code to the LLMs, I say, especially if you don't own it.
  - baranul 2mo ago
    Way too many people like to reach for the easiest path. They will often assume or have blind faith that the AI or online answer is correct. Coming up with the solution themselves or taking time to understand why something might be the correct answer, can be just too much work to be bothered with.

slibhb 2mo ago

> 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. While I appreciate you laying it out so plainly, I disagree. A novel is a bunch of words and I don't care if they were written by one person, five, an AI, or infinite monkeys on typewriters. What's valuable in a novel (or a poem) is in the words.

drdeca 2mo ago
I think there is both value that comes from the work being authored by a human, and value which does not?
Forgeties79 2mo ago
I care because it’s not personal, it’s not informed by lived experience, etc. It has no meaning. AI “novels” are just facsimiles of other people’s writings assembled in a way that appears new, but ultimately it’s just an approximation of a person writing a book. Their’s no author intent or context of any kind to consider. It removes core pillars of experiencing literature. I don’t want a mathematical approximation of writing informed by feelings, knowledge, experiences, etc. anymore than I would want to see an “AI band” perform just because the music is supposedly great. There’s no personality, there’s nothing personal period.
- horsawlarway 2mo ago
  while I understand this argument - I think it consistently falls down when compared to the types of content that are generally purchased and consumed. I'd argue that most folks get plenty of value from the content itself, entirely separate from the intent, context, or even existence of the author. I don't care about the motivations of the director to enjoy an action movie. I don't care about the life history of the author to enjoy a good fiction. I think there is (and should be) space for content where people care, but I'd suggest it's the fringes (ex - majority of music is production grade pop, not meaningful songs, majority of books sales are erotic fiction, etc).
  - Forgeties79 2mo ago

Wilsoniumite 2mo ago

"What's your unique contribution to the world" is a good question, and I've been thinking about it a lot. One framing I very much like is thinking about the priceable versus unpriceable contributions of a person. As an example, your software engineering ability is priceable (it's your labor). Your value to your parents isn't priceable. The problem is, right now the default assumed value of the latter is 0. Our society only tries to put a value on priceable facets of a person. There's reasons for that, wisdom of the crowds and whatnot, but of course it also means that if an AI can do that thing, economics drives society to adopt AI over employing people. It's possible to set that latter value to be nonzero. You can't use free markets to set it because they necessarily cannot see what price to set, so you kinda have to guess, but IMO, it isn't zero, and I'd hazard to say it's positive.

amarant 2mo ago
Silly nitpick but the free market absolutely can, and has in the past, put a monetary (positive)value on your person. We have of course abolished slavery since then. Which is a weird way of saying I don't think we necessarily should put a monetary value to people. Instead we need to realize that money isn't everything in life. So much of life is unpriceable, and that's as it should be. Attempting to price the unpriceable necessarily makes a mockery of the unpriceable thing.
hsb3 2mo ago
You guys have to look up where the concept of Dignity came from.

athrowaway3z 2mo ago

> 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. .... What? You open up with the calculator argument. Great. Then state "on the flip side". Ok. And then declare it very simple in your mind when there is _only_ the flip side. The whole issue is the not-simple gray area and where each of us believes the line between empowered human and brainless idiot is drawn.

elmer2 2mo ago

"Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again?" Many of the LLM maximalists I know don't have the skills or knowledge to excel in technology and need to use LLMs to do their job. It's seen as a cheat code to get work done. As an example, A person I went to high school with that could barely figure out how to setup a Drupal site a few years ago, is now a frontier engineer at an AI startup. His Linkedin posts are filled with AI buzz words on a daily basis. "It's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. " At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI.

MisterTea 2mo ago
> At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI. So what if its indistinguishable - its not a product of human intellect or effort. I feel there is a large disconnect where people look at artful output such as music or writing as a thing no different than a box of paper clips. To them, "It's just there." They don't care how it got there, they just like the feeling they get from the consumption. That's fast food thinking; It's engineered to be "tasty" in the sense that they put the right amount of chemicals into the food to tickle the right nerve endings. It's junk food that exists to turn a profit. Whereas even the local diner puts effort into its food and has a damn fine Greek menu and the best mozzarella sticks.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  If you knew how the modern music industry and local diners work, you might not be so impressed. It's not all artisanal, made with love goodness just because human hands did it.
  - ericfr11 2mo ago
    But the AI would not be able to perform live on a stage, producing emotions. I can't imagine staying 3 hours in a crowded room looking at a robot or a computer screen, even if it produces great music. Or if we get to that point, what gives the right and permission for humans to exist anymore?

parl_match 2mo ago

> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. I want to support that I'd extend on this as well: the process of creating changes you. In a technical sense, where you approach a problem and the way you solve that problem informs you. Both your problem solving skills, creative skills, but also even understanding how a compromise works. This is why I have minimal compunction about an experienced engineer using AI-assisted coding ("hey claude, define this data class") versus finding AI-art to be repugnant. The act of creating an artistic work is both an expression, but also the act of ideating and then executing on that changes you. Experience, emotion, and other more intangible concepts.

dmarcos 2mo ago
I mostly agree with you but, how do you square the use of other types of automation that are not AI? e.g computer animation vs hand-drawn, CAD software for engineering and architecture… Are those lesser art forms or we’re just used to them?
- parl_match 2mo ago
  I don't have enough experience in those fields to really firm up a judgement from my perspective. The act of creation not just creates, it informs you. For example, when placing a wall with CAD for architecture, maybe you realize that some walls on an non-level roof have visually unappealing or difficult wall/roof joints. And then you consider that for future designs? Or you pause and think further about how a person interacts with that room. You can see how the act of creation delivered meaningful feedback to you, as a person. IDK that's just an example I could come up with, you should really ask an architect or ID guy
wincy 2mo ago
I use AI to make songs and pictures for my friends. I barely even listen to music that I didn’t have a hand in making. It’s my favorite genre by far. My kids too. Personalized studio quality songs all day, every day. I suddenly have the power and time to make things I enjoy. I think there’s going to be a hollowing out that’s going to happen where we might not have another Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift or famous musicians because why bother when you can just listen to your own custom tailored tunes. All that matters to me is that I like the song. I don’t care if someone built a custom keyboard or did it on a Stradivarius violin.

mrctte 2mo ago

> I'm not good at lifting weights or running, so my thinking is the only thing I have I'm not saying this to be snarky, but maybe it's time to work on lifting weights and running. The worth of a novel is, of course, subjective, but most people would judge it based on the entertainment value it provides and not how much human effort went into it. Hobbies like fitness (which don't have an output that's meant to be consumed) seem like a safer harbor in this new era.

BHSPitMonkey 2mo ago
I was going to say, neither of those forms of exercise are expressions of a natural talent... they're things you simply do (at whatever levels you can currently manage) to stay healthy. They're good for your mental state, too! (And I could stand to do both a bit more regularly...)

hellisothers 2mo ago

Focusing just on AI wrt our work (let’s say software engineering for now) and letting go the other items. I see a like when this comes up the story is if the AI is doing the arch/impl then what are you even doing anymore? That is honestly not where my value add is, many people can do those two things plenty well, it’s basically commoditized at this point (at a certain experience level). What I bring is all the soft skills and intuition to glue it together and ship and maintain it. Let the impl go.

hoppp 2mo ago

Just live your life and don't support the AI machine. Nobody is forcing you, your life quality might get much better and you live your life as an intelligent person. On the other side, people pushing the intelligence is for losers narrative are already too stupid to create anything that benefits humanity or the planet, so might as well ignore them.

Aurornis 2mo ago

> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again? We had some contractors at the house doing some work. The contractors had been doing this work for a long time. I could tell they were good at what they did because I had some experience with that type of work when I was younger and they were way better than me. We ran into an unusual situation (old house, old building techniques, overlapping old renovations) that they had never seen before. The contractors pulled up ChatGPT and started chatting with it. Eventually they came up with a solution with some good materials and techniques to make it work without turning it into a bigger tear out and complete rebuild project, and they got quick links to confirm it matched code. This worked because they had the experience to judge the accuracy of the answers. They still checked the claims against the description of the materials we needed to order. After they did the work they had the experience to do it again, and it didn’t take them any guessing, trial and error, or searching through forums or Facebook groups (which are very popular with contractors) to get advice. This is the right way to benefit from LLMs in learning something: Get the information then put it into practice so you learn it. I worry when I see someone claim to learn something from an LLM but then the next turn is having the LLM do the work. It’s like skimming a math textbook but then skipping the exercises and never doing any quizzes. Every student in school learns that you have to practice to really understand something because reading the words is not enough. You have to work through it to internalize it. LLMs can be very powerful tools in this way. They can also trick people into thinking they’re learning when they’re not. I think everyone has to go through that learning process about how to learn all over again like we all did with calculators in elementary school. There will be a lot of people who get trapped into being LLM promoters, whose output ceiling is limited by what LLMs can do as limited by their ability to recognize what’s right and wrong. By now, almost everyone can think of someone they know who is happy to turn their brain off and press enter in Claude until it says the task is complete. I worry how this is going to intersect with the Reddit generation who grew up consuming doomer content about how jobs are just “bullshit jobs” and how your goal should be to do as little as possible at work, because there will come a time where those who spent their careers offloading their thinking to LLMs without doing the hard work of learning will not have much compelling reason to be hired over any other intern who can prompt Claude. On the long term view I can see a lot of the LLM prompters getting replaced by LLMs doing the prompting. On social media like Reddit you can already see a lot of people gloating about how they just copy from Jira into Claude, push a PR, and then have Claude handle code review from their peers while they do nothing. Not hard to see that someone like that isn’t doing much that couldn’t be done by going one level deeper with Claude and letting it automate that person away. You have to put in some work to stay valuable.

njarboe 2mo ago

The same was probably said when machines started making furniture, cloth, harvesting wheat, etc. A desk made custom by a human to your specs is cool, beautiful, and life giving for both involved. And will cost $10-$50k. Maybe with the AIs and robots doing the grunt work, humans could get back to building things for each other. That would be great but I'm not sure what percentage of people are interested in that though.

dismalaf 2mo ago

> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? "Many book maximalists say they read books to learn new things, but to what effect?" First we had verbal transmission, then books, then the Internet, now LLMs. And they all kind of do the same thing. For me, the value of an LLM is it can take my imprecise query, scour its memory AND the Internet, and then return an answer (with citations if you ask) quicker than I can look for it "manually". And I'm far from an LLM maximalist...

embedding-shape 2mo ago

> We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products. My first thoughts were around trying to understand why these people would do that. What I see a lot around me, is people being afraid to fail, as it's some inherently dumb and bad thing, not realizing that sometimes failing is what makes you learn enough so you don't fail later, or builds resilience in other ways that later will be useful, for others or for yourself. Avoiding the path of harsh failure will put you down the path of mediocrity.

netsharc 2mo ago
It's passing the buck, isn't it, if I ask AI and AI tells me something dumb, I can blame AI and absolve myself of responsibility. At the same time, the troubling allure is that the machine has ingested a million books and has better knowledge than me (e.g. in things like JavaScript or Japanese), so why not trust it about how to raise kids.

Izkata 2mo ago

> But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. Except calculators have been a problem for decades, it's why they're not allowed in school when you're still learning. Without doing the math yourself and internalizing how it works, you won't develop the number sense to tell if the result makes sense (broken calculator, typo, wrong equation, etc). I still remember my physics teacher using one of the student's test answers as an example of how he should have known it was wrong and gone back over it (I think it was a pendulum on an elevator, his result had negative gravity (so gravity going upwards)).

nicbou 2mo ago
We had exams where the calculator was allowed, because we were tested on our ability to type in the right calculations. The calculator wouldn't save you.
- kurthr 2mo ago
  Even in the 80s HPs would do derivatives (and simple integrals). But, open book tests are the worst, nothing could save you! I still remember giving Mathematica a relational equation of the atomic radius expectation values for it to integrate by parts and collect terms... at the time it failed to find the right integrating factor and gave gibberish. Probably works now.
  - rescbr 2mo ago
    I had a professor who polled the class if we preferred our exams to be open book or not. First year of undergrad. The midterm was open book, he even shared the previous year's exams. The final, as expected, closed book, thank you very much.
kurthr 2mo ago
If you can't work in order of magnitude calculations and estimations you're not going to last long in physics. Many useful models give good answers only within a certain range of inputs, while at the same time you often can tell where in a dynamic space you are by external observations. For example, estimating Martian wind speed within a factor of 3x from the size of the sand dunes, can be done having only seen pictures and with only the knowledge of a few dimensionless parameters. That's also how you can tell if your calculator is "lying" to you (or you typed wrong). I guess I have a few similar tools in spaces where I'm more experienced to see when "hallucinations" and gibberish are being generated by LLMs. Of course having it "check sources" and evaluate its own solutions sometimes also works, if those are reliable, but you're on the hairy edge at that point.

jrozner 2mo ago

Most people only do the simplest of math on a day to day basis. I’d bet that if you asked most adults to do something even remotely non-trivial (addition, subtraction, multiplication) a lot would have trouble without a calculator and/or make a large number of mistakes. That’s probably fine because it’s unlikely most adults are all of a sudden going to have to do non-trivial math without a calculator. That probably isn’t the case for people who are having agents do effectively everything for them in their lives

budsniffer952 2mo ago

>We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products It's not either/or. I think about designing a product in conjunction with AI "thinking" about it. Two heads are better than one.

dolebirchwood 2mo ago
>We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships Anyone who's spent time in professions in or adjacent to social work would say that a lot of their clients would frankly be better off outsourcing these decisions to LLMs.

raincole 2mo ago

> So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote Why not? You're implying writing good prompts doesn't require effort or thought, which is false to me. > Are you going to apply that knowledge of physics or computer science yourself, or will you just prompt the LLM again? To write better prompt is a good reason to learn new things. It's so obvious that more knowledge and experience you have, the better results you get from LLMs.

purav0788 2mo ago

I don't relate with this at all, are you saying that founders who execute through employees are not creating anything by "themselves", they have no "unique contribution"? Most of us just want to create great products and hopefully get paid for them. And at the end, if I create a great product through this method, I feel equally happy, who wants to grind for a decade over some manual software creation process ?

eCa 2mo ago
> most of us *some of us. This is one of the differentiators (can’t find a better word right now). Some became software developers because they enjoy(ed) the process. Some became software developers because that was the way to make products that made money. Neither is more correct or genuine than the other, but neither can also claim to be a significant majority.

nathias 2mo ago

LLMs are bicycles for the mind, they do not think instead of you

WolfeReader 2mo ago
Bicycles don't consume the energy of a small nation.
- nathias 2mo ago
  I'm not sure how much does the total production of bicycles consume, but I don't see how it's relevant for the use.

asdff 2mo ago

The calculator argument is interesting because I am for sure slower at arithmetic by hand than when I was in gradeschool able to rattle off times tables and long division and what not, due to calculator use. I know plenty of other people who can’t easily do basic math, like multiplying something by 1.5x as a recent example in my life. Their gradeschool self probably would also run laps around them.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

ah1508 2mo ago

> calculators didn't make us dumber For most people, GPS did not improve sense of direction, spellchecking did not help to write without making mistake, deepl did not help to be better in foreign languages. But replacing a bicycle by a motorcycle forces to acquire new skills without losing any, and we can find many example of symbiosis between "The man and the machine" (Lindbergh wrote a book named "WE"). AI could be something like that, after all it is human knowledge reachable in a conversational and contextual manner. So AI can be used to learn: "tell me what's wrong in my code, or if it can be improved". I also tend to think that the more we code, the more we give AI valuable piece of knowledge to learn from, the best code it can produce, the less the produced code seems alien. It can be a win/win, all depend on the mindset. I like to code and even if I am skeptical about many aspects of AI I can share the workload with a robot, as an exercise or if the time or budget is constrained.

theturtletalks 2mo ago

> is it the prompt you once wrote? Yes, but also the prompts you give after, and the iterations you continue to do. Art is rarely something you build once and forget about. A lot of that going on in AI no doubt, but the builders who polish their work and strive for perfection are still the builders they were before AI. You mention the novel writer and yes that person who's great at writing novels will create great art. But the ones that are 80% of the way their, but maybe can't nail the ending, or segue into different plot-lines, can now create great art and have AI get them there. Subconsciously, they will get better at those things by using AI and seeing the result. I'm always reminded of that I, Robot scene where the scientist says "you must ask the right questions." And that is true now more than ever.

obscurette 2mo ago

> calculators didn't make us dumber I think that most of people misunderstand what calculator changed. Calculator didn't replace people doing math, calculator replaced mathematical tables, slide rulers and other already existing devices. And regarding making people dumber ... Math teachers who saw this change said that there was a clear shift – students started to think less critically. With slide rulers and tables you had to think about answers – significant figures etc – with calculators you don't.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
Tubelord 2mo ago
You still have to think about significant figures with calculators I used. Most will produce an irrational number result with as many insignificant digits that will fit on the display.
- obscurette 2mo ago
  Only with final answer, if you have to round etc. With slide rulers and tables you had to think about it with every step, where to put your decimal separator etc.
ColdStream 2mo ago
One could argue that those who think calculators didn't make themselves dumb cannot be the judge of that. Cannot be the claimant, defendant and judge all at the same time. I would say that calculators definitely reduced my more simplistic mathematics skills but did open up some more advanced stuff. I wouldn't say it was a gain or a loss, just depends on what your needs are.

murukesh_s 2mo ago

it's the gut bacteria that is left. lol, that hunger, that emotion, that sense of intuition. Without emotions we are just a naturally evolved LLM.

ClikeX 2mo ago

The thing with calculator argument that always gets me. I do math unconsciously all the time. Even something as simple as adjusting a recipe when cooking. I don't need to grab a device to do that, I just do the quick math in my head. And the only way I can do that is because I learned how to do math. And even with a calculator, I still needed to know what to calculate. The argument "we don't need math, we have a calculator" assumes you always get a textbook question that lays it out for you. Same goes for LLMs. I can use them for programming, and they're very convenient. But I still need to know what to ask it and make sure it stays within the confines of what I want. And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. Naturally, this assumes a workflow where you do actually look and modify the output yourself. But I'd argue that any non tech person is inevitably going to hit a wall where they can't debug themselves out of without getting a human involved.

abalashov 2mo ago
Underrated and paradoxical element of this, to which, as far as I can tell, LLM boosters offer no solution: > And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe. I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs effectively. It's not that I think the physiokinetic aspects of typing as an input mechanism hold some metaphysical distinction, but rather the level of engagement it forces with the code, and the units in which it does so. I'm not aware as yet of any viable replacement for that. It's easy to trade on decades of software engineering experience with LLMs: with sufficient experience, everything goes around and comes around, almost any pattern is recognisable, the gratification is immediate, the benefits are now, while the costs and disasters are down the road. However, the technology world is not static, and if you don't keep up with new frameworks, libraries, languages and other tech in that physical-mechanical "mind-body-keyboard" way that typing--or something substantially close to it--accomplishes, you will lose the ability to navigate that world fluently. To say it's just another abstraction layer and that the world didn't crumble after compilers is to miss something quite essential about how LLMs differ from compilers or high-level languages. The disengagement with the process of physically programming something quite specific will take down with it the ability, over time, to formulate useful prompts and competently review the output.

JimsonYang 2mo ago

> If a human writes a novel, it's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share But the market doesnt reward that. Different consumers different markets, but (using a salad analogy) overall consumers dont care how a salad is made, only whether it tastes good and is cheap

beloch 2mo ago

Just to leapfrog off of the calculator notion... There's a difference between capability and mastery. If you have a calculator, you are capable of doing basic arithmetic (probably). If you can do fairly complex arithmetic in your head, that's mastery. If all you need is capability, it's fair to say that acquiring mastery might be wasted effort. However, if you want to go on to do advanced math, physics, etc., then mastery of basic arithmetic, calculus, algebra, etc. are necessary stepping stones. If you have to go back to calculators, math programs, textbooks, etc. every time for basic things while trying to formulate and manipulate equations, you're going to have a very hard time getting along. Sure, rely on AI for things that you merely need as capabilities, but recognize that doing so prevents you from developing mastery required to progress to other things. If you don't want to progress to those things, then it's fine. If you do, then you should rethink your approach.

reinitctxoffset 2mo ago

I'm acutely aware that even 6-12 months off the keyboard is brutal to come back from, it's a real issue now because there are pockets of work where the agents can drive the whole thing. If you just autopilot there? The comprehension and skill debt becomes really hard to pay down in as little as a week or two for the really high complexity stuff. I try hard to keep a serious feature branch going on every project where I'm driving it in emacs or vscode or whatever. `gptel` is great for this because it can tool call for the docs, be a super search engine like Google used to be but you're keeping your reflexes up, keeping the comprehension debt under control. For me this is almost exactly like being in an EM role: it's so easy to lose track of the details, you have all these other demands on your time, there's pressure to grow headcount, and the costs of letting the skills slip is all but invisible for a while. But before you know it you're rubber stamping stuff you don't really grasp, you're not able to help people who are having trouble in the codebase, it's all bad. And depending on why you got into this business, it can become pretty joyless to be totally out of the loop. Now every engineer has to navigate this. It's going to be interesting.

TacticalCoder 2mo ago

> 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.

bsoles 2mo ago

> Many LLM maximalists say they use the tech to learn new things, but to what effect? I would also argue that they use LLMs to learn "about" new things, but not really the thing itself. I, myself, learned a lot about complex SQL queries just recently using LLMs. But I really don't know how to write complex queries myself. People often confuse reading about a thing with knowing the thing.

brookst 2mo ago

Eh, not convinced. Certainly what works for you works for you. But the idea that “outsourcing” to experts is somehow detrimental is one of the modern tropes I can’t stand. And I’m not sure I believe there’s a material difference between e.g. reading research about raising children versus asking an LLM that is grounded in (and cites) that research. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I don’t think most of us have a unique contribution to the world. Emphasis on unique. So why not leverage all resources in the effort to maximize happiness for ourselves and those around us?

protocolture 2mo ago

>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? We have people here who use LLMs to raise their children, to manage relationships, to design products. So what's your unique contribution to this world - is it the prompt you once wrote? You're standing in front of a token-generating machine, pulling a lever, sometimes receiving gifts. Is that your edge, your unique experience, your purpose in life? Cognitive offloading seems to be a feature of humans, we do it with spouses and people we work with. I dont see why offloading some other stuff to an LLM is going to dehumanise someone.

backwardsponcho 2mo ago
When people interact with spouses and coworkers, it's still human-to-human interaction. There is a person on the other end. Not quite the same when your head doctor, DJ, gym coach, and nutritionist are the same sycophant machine who's eager to let you know how absolutely right you are.
- protocolture 2mo ago
  >There is a person on the other end. Not sure why that matters tbh. Cognitive Offloading is a human ability. We built a tool that can be used with it in absence of another person. The argument seemed to be that Cognitive Offloading dehumanised a person, but now things have shifted to "Its only good with another human". If its worthwhile we will do it, if its not worthwhile we wont.

LelouBil 2mo ago

My take is that you learn math before learning how to use a calculator. And can understand what it does and reproduce it (slower) by hand if needed, but everyone is still using it for stuff we don't need to think about. If you use AI exactly like this I find no issue, but I fear most people are using the calculator without knowing the math and that's the real issue to me.

gumby 2mo ago

TBH, the calculator example isn’t an encouraging one. I use a calculator (these days N PP, or spotlight). But by the time I do that I already have an approximate ide of why the answer is, so if it’s way off, or the sign is wrong, I see it immediately. Same with GPS, though many folks have no idea how to navigate on their own anymore so often don’t notice when they’ve accidentally had a typo or chosen the wrong Springfield. So I find using an LLM can be useful when I already have an idea of that the problem is. At their request I reviewed a colleague’s plan for a project. I looked up some of the baseline parameters so I could understand the plan, than I made some comments w/questions about things I didn’t quite understand. A couple of minutes late for our morning mtg I came in while my colleague was saying that I had found a bunch of things that Claude had not. This is why they are bad news for new grads who haven’t yet learned the and pitfalls of their fields. And this was a senior person who just outsourced the work to the LLM.

zombot 2mo ago

> I'm not good at lifting weights or running, so my thinking is the only thing I have. Even if you were, the best you could hope for is a career in entertainment ("sports"). The necessity for bodily strength was abolished in the industrial revolution of the 1800s and 1900s. Now the maximalists predictably say we have another "industrial revolution" that makes our intellect redundant. I don't believe that but if it were true, the question what defines the value of a human would become even more pressing, with less leeway as to what the answer might be. H. G. Wells needed The Time Machine to find a world like that. Still, if enough people believe that LLMs do make our intellect redundant, it will trigger a cultural crisis similar to the one at the previous turn of the century when men struggled with their defining attribute (physical strength) being taken away by machines. The reverse centaur is over 100 years old, even if that name wasn't used then.

chungusamongus 2mo ago

This just sounds like the black and white fallacy ad nauseum. Like every sentence is constructed to frame the entire issue around a false binary. Like you assume that if "maximalists" use LLMs more than the average joe, they're not "thinking." Black and white. Either-or. Maximalists are hobbyists. They usually read up on the newest models, try out different ones, maybe even build pcs specifically to run local models. You honestly think they're not thinking as much as you? Also there is absolutely no reason to value "being unique" for its own sake. Unique people aren't walking around trying to avoid tech to max out their uniqueness potential. That's just neuroticism. It does seem to me as though a lot of people have this misplaced faith in humanism and it just feels like copium at this point. Worse yet, it honestly just seems like a way to dunk on those they perceive as conformists. So basically just a high school mall goth. You are not in a position to lecture other people about their purpose. Your brain is a pattern recognition machine just like everyone else. You've grown fond of some patterns you picked up on that emerged during the enlightenment and you seem to be just superficially regurgitating them, not unlike an LLM. Calculators made us dumber in the sense that we no longer have to perform mathematical operations on the fly. That gives us room to do something else. What other people do is up to them. That's what freedom is. You assume the maximalist is just sitting there prompting all day. If they are, whatever. That's their hobby. It’s not much different than playing video games all day. Either way, Im pretty sure their lives are filled with sadness and joy just like you and everyone else.

jknoepfler 2mo ago

Having learned math in an accelerated program that banned calculators, my experience has been that they do substantially diminish mathematical learning. They are useful for things like building an intuition about the behavior of functions... but ask a student to manually graph and compare the behavior of some fairly trivial functions ( ln x, 1/x, sqrt x, x^3 ) over the interval [0, 1] and you'll pretty quickly see the difference between kids who are trained to think for themselves and kids who aren't. The ability to engage with math "critically" is fundamental to being able to use it constructively/creatively. I think we're seeing the impact of LLMs more broadly in the drastic decline in incoming freshman academic competency levels, and will continue to observe people becoming measurably, meaningfully stupider until we clamp down on / outright ban LLM usage in education.

scotty79 2mo ago

> On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? If your answer is "not much", you gotta step up so that the answer is closer to "more than ever was". You dug the holes in the ground with a shovel your entire life. Suddenly somebody gifts you a digger, nearly for free. If your reaction to this is "what's left for me now? anyone could just pull levers, no strength or skill needed!" not, "I could dig so much more and deeper holes with this digger!" then you need to chill, reflect, then fight your fear and perverse laziness and learn how to become the best person to pull the levers.