4 ms·

I would argue even the opposite. And that is the reason I resist to using them (assistants). Just as people using GPS are loosing the orientation abilities, I’m

by f1shy 2y ago

I would argue even the opposite. And that is the reason I resist to using them (assistants). Just as people using GPS are loosing the orientation abilities, I’m afraid that excesive use of assistants may deteriorate our abilities.

uludag 2y ago
To further this point, while the vast majority of people could go without such skills, there are jobs where such skills are valuable. So developing skills pretty much everyone has given up on allow one to carve a unique niche for themselves.
itishappy 2y ago
Unfortunately, a company making deliveries won't necessarily need an expert at orientation once GPS is reliably available.
- f1shy 2y ago
  Neither needed they before. Just needed people who could drive to the destination. The ones who can without GPS, will be very much capable to work with it, and when the nav app. goes crazy for whatever reason, they will be still making useful work for the company. Even everyday routes, when they know better, because of experience. So those who can w/o will be more valuable. Anyway, like any analogy, it has its limits, and trying to base the whole discussion in that analogy is not productive
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Sounds good in theory, but is that really true in practice? Are there delivery companies paying premiums today for drivers with demonstrable orienteering skills?
trod1234 2y ago
I've seen this as well, but more pronounced in the areas impacted by AI the most. If there is little to no professional work in a scope, people don't get smarter, they get dumber, and it happens through simple atrophy. Good engineering is the constant mental build up, natural tear down (atrophy) involved, where reality favors us with resiliency. AI replacing large swathes of work will cause those neurons to not fire as often, eventually you'll lose the connections. I don't think there is any safe amount of use that doesn't already create a persistent, self-fulfilling cycles of demand, where overuse would naturally occur just to compete in the labor market. Its effectively a n-body problem with no visibility since the measurements would ultimately be based on value which is subjective. It collapses the value of inherent skilled labor down to 0 paving the way for slavery or death when natural dynamics collapse the economic production system.

by f1shy 2y ago

uludag 2y ago

To further this point, while the vast majority of people could go without such skills, there are jobs where such skills are valuable. So developing skills pretty much everyone has given up on allow one to carve a unique niche for themselves.

itishappy 2y ago

Unfortunately, a company making deliveries won't necessarily need an expert at orientation once GPS is reliably available.

f1shy 2y ago
Neither needed they before. Just needed people who could drive to the destination. The ones who can without GPS, will be very much capable to work with it, and when the nav app. goes crazy for whatever reason, they will be still making useful work for the company. Even everyday routes, when they know better, because of experience. So those who can w/o will be more valuable. Anyway, like any analogy, it has its limits, and trying to base the whole discussion in that analogy is not productive
- itishappy 2y ago
  Sounds good in theory, but is that really true in practice? Are there delivery companies paying premiums today for drivers with demonstrable orienteering skills?

trod1234 2y ago

I've seen this as well, but more pronounced in the areas impacted by AI the most. If there is little to no professional work in a scope, people don't get smarter, they get dumber, and it happens through simple atrophy. Good engineering is the constant mental build up, natural tear down (atrophy) involved, where reality favors us with resiliency. AI replacing large swathes of work will cause those neurons to not fire as often, eventually you'll lose the connections. I don't think there is any safe amount of use that doesn't already create a persistent, self-fulfilling cycles of demand, where overuse would naturally occur just to compete in the labor market. Its effectively a n-body problem with no visibility since the measurements would ultimately be based on value which is subjective. It collapses the value of inherent skilled labor down to 0 paving the way for slavery or death when natural dynamics collapse the economic production system.