3 ms·

I'm going to re-post something that I commented in another thread awhile ago: I tend to think it will. Tools replaced our ancestor's ability to make things by

I'm going to re-post something that I commented in another thread awhile ago: I tend to think it will. Tools replaced our ancestor's ability to make things by hand. Transportation / elevators reduced the average fitness level to walk long distances or climb stairs. Pocket calculators made the general population less able to do complex math. Spelling/grammar checks have reduced knowing how to spell or form complete proper sentences. Keyboards and email are making handwriting a passing skill. Video is reducing our need / desire to read or absorb long form content. The highest percentage of humans will take the easiest path provided. And while most of the above we just consider improvements to daily life, efficiencies, it has also fundamentally changed on average what we are capable of and what skills we learn (especially during formative years). If I dropped most of us here into a pre-technology wilderness we'd be dead in short order. However, most of the above, it can be argued, are just tools that don't impact our actual thought processes; thinking remained our skill. Now the tools are starting to "think", or at least appear like they do on a level indistinguishable to the average person. If the box in my hand can tell me what 4367 x 2231 is and the capital of Guam, why then wouldn't I rely on it when it starts writing up full content for me? Because the average human adapts to the lowest required skill set I do worry that providing a device in our hands that "thinks" is going to reduce our learned ability to rationally process and check what it puts out, just like I've lost the ability to check if my calculator is lying to me. And not to get all dystopian here... but what if then, what that tool is telling me is true, is, for whatever reason, not. (and yes, I ran this through a spell checker because I'm a part of the problem above... and it found words I thought I could still spell, and I'm 55)

api 1y ago
But does this, at least for those who choose to use it as leverage, free up more brain power for other newer or different things? > If I dropped most of us here into a pre-technology wilderness we'd be dead in short order. I hear this all the time and I'm not convinced. People are incredibly resourceful under pressure. When your amygdala calmly informs your neocortex "learn, work hard, or die" the effect can be pretty profound. People would quickly form tribes and communities and those with relevant skills would teach others. Some people would absolutely fail to adapt, but I'm not convinced it would be as many as we think. The greatest danger in a collapse scenario would be other humans, since one path some would choose is "rob and kill other people." But that's a different sort of problem.
- intended 1y ago
  Everyone is now a cyborg; you are either more or less dependent on your tooling side or your biological side.
- tgv 1y ago
  > free up more brain power for other newer or different things? That's wildly speculative. So speculative, it cannot be taken serious as an argument. The brain is flexible, but not unlimited. Quite a few functions seem to prefer a specific part of the brain. In fact, I don't know of any that is free floating, but that might be because it's hard to find. But what the brain above all requires is training. Without it, all that power is laid to waste. You can't learn a new language without actually learning it, nor can you do something new without actual training. You can't be intelligent without training your intelligence, and put real effort into it. Relying on a computer for the answers keeps you dumb. Use it, or lose it, as they say. And what is that new thing that our brains are going to do? You don't know. And since you don't know, why throw it around like it will offset the harm that can come from using AI? Are you already that dependent on it?
- arjunaaqa 1y ago
  Every time we see this argument “this frees humanity to focus on higher things” and then we see what actually humans are spending more time on, - not books - not people - but mobile - senseless entertainment (2-3 hours daily on mobile ) - social media If we stop using a part of brain, and that function (say memory or calculation) donwe actually use it ever again ? Or we are becoming more and more zombies ? So much so that most people are incapable of reading a book, Or even watching a 3 hour movie. Say what you may, but this extra time is not being used for meaningfup stuff. Devices are becoming smart and our brains & bodies are becoming dumber. Simple way to know if a high school student can stand against high school student of 90s ? Or even researchers or programmers ? In depth of thinking and agency. I want this to happen but real world evidence is not saying this.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > So much so that most people are incapable of reading a book, > Or even watching a 3 hour movie. I agree with your thesis in general, but I don’t think these two in particular are comparable the way you’re phrasing them. I have read books in a single five or six hour sitting but those were “by accident” in the sense that I wasn’t expecting to finish the book the day that I started them, I went into them with the expectation there would be pauses. Books work well with this type of interruption and have well-defined chapters. A three hour movie, on the other hand, I see as a commitment I must try to not interrupt because it is designed as a single experience. Breaking it up detracts from the artist’s goal. Before starting it I must immediately look at clock and do some math: can I even begin to watch this movie, considering that in two hours I should <be preparing dinner | sleeping | picking someone up | something else>? A similar phenomenon is when we don’t feel like watching a two-hour movie “because it’s too long” but then happily binge watch fours hours of some TV show instead. Even if we ignore TV shows are often designed to be more addictive, the fact that you have clearly delineated stop points—chapters, if you will—makes them a more manageable commitment.
consumer451 1y ago
I recently learned that human brain size has been decreasing for the last 10,000 years.[0] The thinking is that prior to us building societies, we all had to be generalists and know "everything." Once we are in a group, we can offload some knowledge to others in the society. My point being, this all seems to have started long ago and doesn't even necessarily require technology to explain the beginnings of the trend. [0] https://www.dwarkesh.com/i/158922207/why-is-human-brain-size-declining https://www.dwarkesh.com/i/158922207/why-is-human-brain-size...

api 1y ago

But does this, at least for those who choose to use it as leverage, free up more brain power for other newer or different things? > If I dropped most of us here into a pre-technology wilderness we'd be dead in short order. I hear this all the time and I'm not convinced. People are incredibly resourceful under pressure. When your amygdala calmly informs your neocortex "learn, work hard, or die" the effect can be pretty profound. People would quickly form tribes and communities and those with relevant skills would teach others. Some people would absolutely fail to adapt, but I'm not convinced it would be as many as we think. The greatest danger in a collapse scenario would be other humans, since one path some would choose is "rob and kill other people." But that's a different sort of problem.

intended 1y ago
Everyone is now a cyborg; you are either more or less dependent on your tooling side or your biological side.
tgv 1y ago
> free up more brain power for other newer or different things? That's wildly speculative. So speculative, it cannot be taken serious as an argument. The brain is flexible, but not unlimited. Quite a few functions seem to prefer a specific part of the brain. In fact, I don't know of any that is free floating, but that might be because it's hard to find. But what the brain above all requires is training. Without it, all that power is laid to waste. You can't learn a new language without actually learning it, nor can you do something new without actual training. You can't be intelligent without training your intelligence, and put real effort into it. Relying on a computer for the answers keeps you dumb. Use it, or lose it, as they say. And what is that new thing that our brains are going to do? You don't know. And since you don't know, why throw it around like it will offset the harm that can come from using AI? Are you already that dependent on it?
arjunaaqa 1y ago
Every time we see this argument “this frees humanity to focus on higher things” and then we see what actually humans are spending more time on, - not books - not people - but mobile - senseless entertainment (2-3 hours daily on mobile ) - social media If we stop using a part of brain, and that function (say memory or calculation) donwe actually use it ever again ? Or we are becoming more and more zombies ? So much so that most people are incapable of reading a book, Or even watching a 3 hour movie. Say what you may, but this extra time is not being used for meaningfup stuff. Devices are becoming smart and our brains & bodies are becoming dumber. Simple way to know if a high school student can stand against high school student of 90s ? Or even researchers or programmers ? In depth of thinking and agency. I want this to happen but real world evidence is not saying this.
- latexr 1y ago
  > So much so that most people are incapable of reading a book, > Or even watching a 3 hour movie. I agree with your thesis in general, but I don’t think these two in particular are comparable the way you’re phrasing them. I have read books in a single five or six hour sitting but those were “by accident” in the sense that I wasn’t expecting to finish the book the day that I started them, I went into them with the expectation there would be pauses. Books work well with this type of interruption and have well-defined chapters. A three hour movie, on the other hand, I see as a commitment I must try to not interrupt because it is designed as a single experience. Breaking it up detracts from the artist’s goal. Before starting it I must immediately look at clock and do some math: can I even begin to watch this movie, considering that in two hours I should <be preparing dinner | sleeping | picking someone up | something else>? A similar phenomenon is when we don’t feel like watching a two-hour movie “because it’s too long” but then happily binge watch fours hours of some TV show instead. Even if we ignore TV shows are often designed to be more addictive, the fact that you have clearly delineated stop points—chapters, if you will—makes them a more manageable commitment.

consumer451 1y ago

I recently learned that human brain size has been decreasing for the last 10,000 years.[0] The thinking is that prior to us building societies, we all had to be generalists and know "everything." Once we are in a group, we can offload some knowledge to others in the society. My point being, this all seems to have started long ago and doesn't even necessarily require technology to explain the beginnings of the trend. [0] https://www.dwarkesh.com/i/158922207/why-is-human-brain-size-declining https://www.dwarkesh.com/i/158922207/why-is-human-brain-size...