6 ms·

> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills? Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it take

> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills? Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it takes over people's minds.

boppo1 1y ago
>Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking Is there hard evidence on this?
- MattRix 1y ago
  yes https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6 https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6
- bgwalter 1y ago
  If you are the type who prefers studies: https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ Otherwise, read pro-LLM blogs which are mostly rambling nonsense that overpromises while almost no actual LLM written software exists. You can also see how the few open source developers who jump on the LLM bandwagon now have worse blogging and programming output than they had pre-LLM.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    I have 7 different 100% LLM written programs in use at my company daily, some going back to GPT-4 and some a recent as gemini 2.5. Software engineers are so lost in the weeds of sprawling feature pack endless flexibility programs that they have completely lost sight of simple narrow scope programs. I can tell an LLM exactly how we need the program to work (forgoing endless settings and option menus) and tell it exactly what it needs to do (forgoing endless branching possibilities for every conceivable user workflow) and get a lean lightweight program that takes the user from A to B in 3k LOC. Is the program something that could be sold? No. Would it work for other companies/users? Probably not. Does it replace a massive 1M+ LOC $20/mo software package for that user in our bespoke use case? Yes.
- fat_cantor 1y ago
  Some preliminary evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277
- infecto 1y ago
  Short answer no. Longer answer there was that study posted this week that compared it to using search and then what was it…raw thinking or something similar. I could totally understand in certain cases you are not activating parts of your brain as much, I don’t know any of it proves much in aggregate.
infecto 1y ago
Sounds like you’re taking crazy pills. Far to early from any of the studies done so far to come to your conclusion.
- bopbopbop7 1y ago
  Do you really need a study to tell you that offloading your thinking to something else impairs your thinking? But yes, there are studies to prove the most obvious statement in the world. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277
  - infecto 1y ago
    It’s not obvious to me but perhaps you are approach it from a biased perspective. Sure if you left all higher order function to a LLM, thinking about homework and simply parsing it all through a chatbot, of course you are losing out. There is a lot of nuance to it and I am not sure if that very first initial study captures it. Everyone is different and YMMV but I suspect it will come down to how you use the tools not a simple blanket statement like yours. Do you really latch on to a single early study to make conclusions in the world? Wild. Next time before going down the path of rudeness, why don’t you share a real anecdote or thought. We have all seen that study linked many times already.
    - bopbopbop7 1y ago
      You asked for a study, you got a study. Yet you’re still playing mental gymnastics to somehow prove that not using your brain doesn’t impair thinking. You want an anecdote now? After dismissing a study? Wild. I doubt that will convince you if a study won’t, just grasping at straws. And no, it’s not nuanced at all. If you stop using your brain, you lose cognitive abilities. If you stop working out, you lose muscle. If you stop coding and let someone else do it, you lose coding abilities. No one is being rude, that’s just what it feels like when someone calls you out with evidence.
      - infecto 1y ago

> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills? Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it takes over people's minds.

boppo1 1y ago

>Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking Is there hard evidence on this?

MattRix 1y ago
yes https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6 https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6
bgwalter 1y ago
If you are the type who prefers studies: https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ Otherwise, read pro-LLM blogs which are mostly rambling nonsense that overpromises while almost no actual LLM written software exists. You can also see how the few open source developers who jump on the LLM bandwagon now have worse blogging and programming output than they had pre-LLM.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  I have 7 different 100% LLM written programs in use at my company daily, some going back to GPT-4 and some a recent as gemini 2.5. Software engineers are so lost in the weeds of sprawling feature pack endless flexibility programs that they have completely lost sight of simple narrow scope programs. I can tell an LLM exactly how we need the program to work (forgoing endless settings and option menus) and tell it exactly what it needs to do (forgoing endless branching possibilities for every conceivable user workflow) and get a lean lightweight program that takes the user from A to B in 3k LOC. Is the program something that could be sold? No. Would it work for other companies/users? Probably not. Does it replace a massive 1M+ LOC $20/mo software package for that user in our bespoke use case? Yes.
fat_cantor 1y ago
Some preliminary evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277
infecto 1y ago
Short answer no. Longer answer there was that study posted this week that compared it to using search and then what was it…raw thinking or something similar. I could totally understand in certain cases you are not activating parts of your brain as much, I don’t know any of it proves much in aggregate.

infecto 1y ago

Sounds like you’re taking crazy pills. Far to early from any of the studies done so far to come to your conclusion.

bopbopbop7 1y ago
Do you really need a study to tell you that offloading your thinking to something else impairs your thinking? But yes, there are studies to prove the most obvious statement in the world. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277
- infecto 1y ago
  It’s not obvious to me but perhaps you are approach it from a biased perspective. Sure if you left all higher order function to a LLM, thinking about homework and simply parsing it all through a chatbot, of course you are losing out. There is a lot of nuance to it and I am not sure if that very first initial study captures it. Everyone is different and YMMV but I suspect it will come down to how you use the tools not a simple blanket statement like yours. Do you really latch on to a single early study to make conclusions in the world? Wild. Next time before going down the path of rudeness, why don’t you share a real anecdote or thought. We have all seen that study linked many times already.
  - bopbopbop7 1y ago
    You asked for a study, you got a study. Yet you’re still playing mental gymnastics to somehow prove that not using your brain doesn’t impair thinking. You want an anecdote now? After dismissing a study? Wild. I doubt that will convince you if a study won’t, just grasping at straws. And no, it’s not nuanced at all. If you stop using your brain, you lose cognitive abilities. If you stop working out, you lose muscle. If you stop coding and let someone else do it, you lose coding abilities. No one is being rude, that’s just what it feels like when someone calls you out with evidence.
    - infecto 1y ago