3 ms·

I'm a retired computer programmer. All my time is free time. I'm using AI as a cognitive amplifier. I'm learning at a much faster rate than I would without AI.

I'm a retired computer programmer. All my time is free time. I'm using AI as a cognitive amplifier. I'm learning at a much faster rate than I would without AI. I don't have to waste time doing google searches and reading thru irrelevant material to find something germane to my research. I don't depend on AI for anything. I am not doing corporate work. Could it be that what people are experiencing is that they are becoming less suitable for corporate work as AI and robots replace them? Isn't this a good thing? Shouldn't the focus be on using AI to bring out the innate talents of humans that aren't profit driven?

zdragnar 2y ago
You've already got your brain trained in the underlying fundamentals. The way you use AI is going to be slightly different from how someone who is just starting out would experience and adapt to it. For the same reason, we were required to have graphing calculators, but not TI-92 or similar models in calculus class. While the utility is fine for people who have already learned the concepts, attempting to learn advanced algebra or other math with a symbolic solver available cripples your long term retention. The question of "what is motivating the task" doesn't really factor very well into "how does this tool affect a novice", at least not in any similar circumstance I have seen.
- labrador 2y ago
  If you're right, then we should not use AI in elementary and high schools as a learning tool. I suspect most people think we should.
johnea 2y ago
That's a really inspiring hope, but, sadly, not the reality. The current "AI" tech is in fact developed FOR the profit. There is 0 concern at the capital investing level for enhancing any innate human talents. In fact the effort is explicitly intended to REPLACE humans with automation in tasks that have traditionally required those innate human skills. I do believe you find learning and research to be enhanced, and I agree in general that the tech has a great deal of possible benefit, but sadly that's not what ownership hopes to use it for (statistically speaking that is. not all ownership is created equally). This is the luddite problem all over again: it's not the looms that are the problem, it's ownership's interest in shifting funds that would be paid to workers into the coffers of corporate profit. Could advances in technology benefit ownership, and still insure that labor can earn a decent living? Of course it COULD! It's just that given the precedent of human history, that's not how it WILL be used...
- labrador 2y ago
  Computers were initially seen in the 60's and 70's as corporate and scientific tools. Many couldn't imagine one day we would have them in the home. Once that happened, people used computers for all sorts of non-profitable endeavors like painting, music, social discussion, etc... I believe AI will follow a similar trajectory. I can't really speak to how AI is used in corporations to improve the bottom line because I no longer work in them, but I do see how it enhances my personal learning and creativity. Given time, I expect more people to explore AI beyond profit-driven use cases, just like we did with personal computers.
borgdefenser 2y ago
I feel exactly the same way about this "I'm using AI as a cognitive amplifier. I'm learning at a much faster rate than I would without AI." I just don't know how much is actually being replaced though. I think of corporate jobs I have done in that past. I can't think of anything I have ever been paid to do that would be replaced by a language model. It was either something that could have been automated without a language model but was not for various reasons or the output would just be amplified by a language model. In some cases my work would have been enormously amplified and better but not "automated". For some reason we don't seem to like this idea of a cybernetic relationship with a machine that benefits the human even though that is exactly what we have been doing for at least a 150 years. Maybe it is something in our brains that can't turn off a type of predator/prey model. Then on top of that is the mass appeal of this infantile and collectivist idea that AI will do all the work while we collect our UBI trust fund allowance from artificial daddy.

zdragnar 2y ago

You've already got your brain trained in the underlying fundamentals. The way you use AI is going to be slightly different from how someone who is just starting out would experience and adapt to it. For the same reason, we were required to have graphing calculators, but not TI-92 or similar models in calculus class. While the utility is fine for people who have already learned the concepts, attempting to learn advanced algebra or other math with a symbolic solver available cripples your long term retention. The question of "what is motivating the task" doesn't really factor very well into "how does this tool affect a novice", at least not in any similar circumstance I have seen.

labrador 2y ago
If you're right, then we should not use AI in elementary and high schools as a learning tool. I suspect most people think we should.

johnea 2y ago

That's a really inspiring hope, but, sadly, not the reality. The current "AI" tech is in fact developed FOR the profit. There is 0 concern at the capital investing level for enhancing any innate human talents. In fact the effort is explicitly intended to REPLACE humans with automation in tasks that have traditionally required those innate human skills. I do believe you find learning and research to be enhanced, and I agree in general that the tech has a great deal of possible benefit, but sadly that's not what ownership hopes to use it for (statistically speaking that is. not all ownership is created equally). This is the luddite problem all over again: it's not the looms that are the problem, it's ownership's interest in shifting funds that would be paid to workers into the coffers of corporate profit. Could advances in technology benefit ownership, and still insure that labor can earn a decent living? Of course it COULD! It's just that given the precedent of human history, that's not how it WILL be used...

labrador 2y ago
Computers were initially seen in the 60's and 70's as corporate and scientific tools. Many couldn't imagine one day we would have them in the home. Once that happened, people used computers for all sorts of non-profitable endeavors like painting, music, social discussion, etc... I believe AI will follow a similar trajectory. I can't really speak to how AI is used in corporations to improve the bottom line because I no longer work in them, but I do see how it enhances my personal learning and creativity. Given time, I expect more people to explore AI beyond profit-driven use cases, just like we did with personal computers.

borgdefenser 2y ago

I feel exactly the same way about this "I'm using AI as a cognitive amplifier. I'm learning at a much faster rate than I would without AI." I just don't know how much is actually being replaced though. I think of corporate jobs I have done in that past. I can't think of anything I have ever been paid to do that would be replaced by a language model. It was either something that could have been automated without a language model but was not for various reasons or the output would just be amplified by a language model. In some cases my work would have been enormously amplified and better but not "automated". For some reason we don't seem to like this idea of a cybernetic relationship with a machine that benefits the human even though that is exactly what we have been doing for at least a 150 years. Maybe it is something in our brains that can't turn off a type of predator/prey model. Then on top of that is the mass appeal of this infantile and collectivist idea that AI will do all the work while we collect our UBI trust fund allowance from artificial daddy.