5 ms·
This is a good point. There's a hidden cost (energy consumption) which we will eventually pay for. However, even in the 1:1 case it means I am training myself
by michaelteter 3y ago
This is a good point. There's a hidden cost (energy consumption) which we will eventually pay for.
However, even in the 1:1 case it means I am training myself to become a "prompt engineer" rather than to be an actual thinker and problem solver. As long as there will always be another system for me to depend on, maybe that's ok. But as with people who never learned to read maps and navigate without GPS tend to be very confused and lost when their phone dies, I would like to be able to be a useful human even when the power is out.
- sfpotter 3y agoI totally agree, although I think it's even worse than that. In my opinion, a precondition for creativity and inventiveness is understanding. If you rely on a surrogate to give you answers, you will never reach the level of proficiency required to come up with something new. If we train a generation of thinkers to rely on an external brain to get anything done, they will only understand things superficially, and our ability to innovate at the society level will suffer.