4 ms·

> it happened when we achieved a level of such constant stimulation (...) that we’re never bored and never engage the default mode network. I don't know... I d

> it happened when we achieved a level of such constant stimulation (...) that we’re never bored and never engage the default mode network. I don't know... I don't disagree, but I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this. So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, without having some time to be bored, I think it starts to become a choice. We can blame tech for starting this trend of stealing our attention, but once we become aware of this, we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it.

therealpygon 6mo ago
Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes. And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth. I’m not denying (at all) that unused skills languish. I take issue with AI being characterized as a magic eraser that mystically makes people forget what they have already learned. I’ve just done a study and concluded that dogs gets dumber when I throw a ball. What’s my evidence? They stop staring at me to chase it. The ball definitely made them forget who I was, so we shouldn’t allow dogs to have balls anymore. Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills?
- latexr 6mo ago
  > this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes. The linked Wikipedia page has plenty of evidence and studies and you can find plenty more with a basic web search. This is not something someone just made up; if you don’t know there are a multitude of studies on the harms of social media, you haven’t looked at all. Which is fine, it’s our prerogative to not search for information, but don’t turn around and say it doesn’t exist or is anecdotal. > And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. You said, ironically without providing evidence, in the same paragraph that you complained about evidence not being provided for something else which has plenty of it. Furthermore, there are several studies suggesting AI may in fact decrease productivity, but I’m not going to link to those because the more important point is AI has nothing to do with the conversation. The original poster mentioned AI, but this branched thread is exclusively about the “liking to learn” part.
  - addedGone 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- kiba 6mo ago
  Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills? I would argue that's a misuse of AI. If the point of an engineer is to know how things work behind a piece of software, then shipping code without an understanding how it all works is a failure. You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you? So instead of focusing on AI as a productivity tool, focus on AI as a means of adding rigor and understanding to your workflow.
  - g3f32r 6mo ago
    > You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you? If it was as easy to stress test/battery test/materials test/etc a bridge as it is to test code - then yes. I'd trust an engineer who vibe-engineered a bridge. --- The problem with mapping digital problems into meat-space is that there is inherently a few orders of magnitude of cost automatically added to anything that happens in meat-space. I can spin up an arbitrary number (10, 10k, 500k) docker instances, X with fuzzed inputs, Y with explicit edge cases, Z with tolerance testing, etc etc. And if that doesn't work - I can fix and push a button and it just happens again. If a bridge engineer could do that with bridges - yes I'd expect them to be vibing just as hard as we are now.
    - esafak 6mo ago
      Don't mechanical engineers do that with FEM simulations? Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZspM_TvPKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZspM_TvPKQ
      - therealpygon 6mo ago
        Absolutely. These days engineers use AI and simulation to design new types of engines, jet nozzles, etc. Treating it not like a tool is the mistake, and the assumption many make is that “other people must be making that mistake too”.
- swsieber 6mo ago
  > And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth. I didn't see anything in parent chain that implied this. Nor did I see it "characterized as a magic eraser"; I saw it framed as something that impedes learning, and that was tied back to constant simulation. > Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes The arguments I read and the argument you seem to be replying to seem to be different things.
latexr 6mo ago
> I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this. I promise you that is incorrect. People who actively participate on HN are a group more diverse than is often given credit, and I strongly believe there is nothing “everyone knows” here. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ Just nine days ago, someone on HN was vaguely aware of the idea but did not know it’s called the default mode network. How many more aren’t even aware of the idea? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043 Not knowing the name means you’re not aware of all the details, intricacies, studies and ideas pertaining to it. Finally, even if everyone knew about it that would still not be reason to not talk about it. Talking and doing something repeatedly is how you create habits and change behaviour. Same way you should still call out when someone does something bad even if “everyone knows they do it”. > I think it starts to become a choice. (…) we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it. That is called blaming the victim. There are multiple billion dollar corporations and industries actively working to get you addicted, bombarding you from every side. It’s not a simple choice of “I’m not going to engage”, rather you have to actively disengage from what’s thrown in your face all the time. It’s exhausting. You’re falling into their trap and repeating the words they want you to. It’s like a supermarket which offers 99% junk and only a tiny section of always the same selection for healthy eating (not a hypothetical, I have several like that nearby) then blaming buyers for not eating more healthily. It’s not a fair choice if you’re constantly pushing and finding ways to trick people to in one specific direction. And again, not everyone is aware of what is happening. Most people aren’t. And even those who are (which, again, is not even everyone on HN) aren’t immune.
- gchamonlive 6mo ago
  Fair enough. It's always tricky to generalize like this, so I wont defend that position. However, for those who know, I don't think this is blaming the victim. I think victim blaming is a form of debate simplification in this case, just like "this is life" or "shit happens". Sure there are billions of dollars invested in attention stealing mechanisms, just as there are billions of dollars invested in gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry. However, while we need as a society need to discuss mechanisms to control and maybe prohibit these practices, a functional adult human beings should be expected to create safeguards to protect themselves against this. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but my point stands. Once you are aware of things that aren't good for you, you can really only count on yourself to do something about it.
rickdeckard 6mo ago
> So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, [..] I think it starts to become a choice. ...or a subtle addiction that also creates the impression of productivity/progress/social interaction... If so, then all applicable studies on addiction should be taken into consideration as well, but their context probably doesn't even begin to cover the size of the issue here.
lvales 6mo ago
Why don't addicts chose to stop with their addictive behaviour? And this isn't an excuse btw, but if you want to understand why, this is a good place to start.
- gchamonlive 6mo ago
  If they don't want to, go for it. I'm all up for the freedom to choose your poison, as long as it doesn't restrict someone else's freedom of choice (like jumping off a building and landing on someone, killing you both). What I'm saying is that if you recognize booze is bad for you, but you don't do anything about it because heck there is a billion dollar industry behind it, everyone drinks and you'll die anyway, IDK it seems to me like it's mostly your fault, because you'd know where yo get help if you really wanted to. That is, of course, assuming where you live has good policies for treating people with such diseases.
  - jplusequalt 6mo ago
    >there is a billion dollar industry behind it, everyone drinks and you'll die anyway, IDK it seems to me like it's mostly your fault This is an absurd statement. What good is the willpower of a single human in the face of a billion dollars of capital aimed at a society with a penchant for drinking? People are not isolated systems. We live in a society.
    - gchamonlive 6mo ago
      > because you'd know where yo get help if you really wanted to. That is, of course, assuming where you live has good policies for treating people with such diseases. You are probably not the kind of person that would read "Antichrist" and think that Nietzche was a satanist. Or that just because it's called National Socialist party, that the nazis where left-leaning, I'd wager. So why read statements in isolation?
_DeadFred_ 6mo ago
You are pitting your randomly acquired will power and your in large part unintentional stumbling through life against all of human kind's psychology knowledge, against billions of dollars spent on advertising and advertising research. That is at this point tens maybe hundreds of millions of years of acquired human knowledge how to manipulate you versus your very randomly acquired 'will power'. Have you seen the quotes coming out of the richest/most powerful companies on the planet? These are very intentional impacts by companies more powerful than entire nations. I don't think 'but your willpower' stands a chance if you want to be connected to the modern world.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- gchamonlive 6mo ago
  So if you are helpless in a world dominated by the billionaires and the clerics of psychological research, what's the hope for the average person? Should we just accept our fate and waste away in endless Instagram feeds, alcohol, drugs, gambling and all forms of addiction? These need to be managed at society level, banning or taxing goods. But no amount of regulation can compensate for someone determined to destroy himself. So yeah, it's your fault. But it's also society's fault. And at the end of the day the most effective thing you have is your choice.
  - jplusequalt 6mo ago
    >So yeah, it's your fault This framing is doing so much PR work for the alcohol/tobacco/social media companies of the world. Effectively removes any blame from the corporations making billions of dollars off harming our societies.
    - gchamonlive 6mo ago
      It doesn't, or it shouldn't, but you are right, they subvert any responsibility the individual has so they can offload their responsibility into them. But my mistake here is not realising that people under abstinence doesn't behave as if they had any choice. In any case, my original comment was about social media only, which I think has a lot of psychological pressure over the individual, but doesn't have the pharmacological component.

therealpygon 6mo ago

Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes. And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth. I’m not denying (at all) that unused skills languish. I take issue with AI being characterized as a magic eraser that mystically makes people forget what they have already learned. I’ve just done a study and concluded that dogs gets dumber when I throw a ball. What’s my evidence? They stop staring at me to chase it. The ball definitely made them forget who I was, so we shouldn’t allow dogs to have balls anymore. Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills?

latexr 6mo ago
> this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes. The linked Wikipedia page has plenty of evidence and studies and you can find plenty more with a basic web search. This is not something someone just made up; if you don’t know there are a multitude of studies on the harms of social media, you haven’t looked at all. Which is fine, it’s our prerogative to not search for information, but don’t turn around and say it doesn’t exist or is anecdotal. > And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. You said, ironically without providing evidence, in the same paragraph that you complained about evidence not being provided for something else which has plenty of it. Furthermore, there are several studies suggesting AI may in fact decrease productivity, but I’m not going to link to those because the more important point is AI has nothing to do with the conversation. The original poster mentioned AI, but this branched thread is exclusively about the “liking to learn” part.
- addedGone 6mo ago
  [flagged]
kiba 6mo ago
Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills? I would argue that's a misuse of AI. If the point of an engineer is to know how things work behind a piece of software, then shipping code without an understanding how it all works is a failure. You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you? So instead of focusing on AI as a productivity tool, focus on AI as a means of adding rigor and understanding to your workflow.
- g3f32r 6mo ago
  > You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you? If it was as easy to stress test/battery test/materials test/etc a bridge as it is to test code - then yes. I'd trust an engineer who vibe-engineered a bridge. --- The problem with mapping digital problems into meat-space is that there is inherently a few orders of magnitude of cost automatically added to anything that happens in meat-space. I can spin up an arbitrary number (10, 10k, 500k) docker instances, X with fuzzed inputs, Y with explicit edge cases, Z with tolerance testing, etc etc. And if that doesn't work - I can fix and push a button and it just happens again. If a bridge engineer could do that with bridges - yes I'd expect them to be vibing just as hard as we are now.
  - esafak 6mo ago
    Don't mechanical engineers do that with FEM simulations? Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZspM_TvPKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZspM_TvPKQ
    - therealpygon 6mo ago
      Absolutely. These days engineers use AI and simulation to design new types of engines, jet nozzles, etc. Treating it not like a tool is the mistake, and the assumption many make is that “other people must be making that mistake too”.
swsieber 6mo ago
> And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth. I didn't see anything in parent chain that implied this. Nor did I see it "characterized as a magic eraser"; I saw it framed as something that impedes learning, and that was tied back to constant simulation. > Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes The arguments I read and the argument you seem to be replying to seem to be different things.

latexr 6mo ago

> I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this. I promise you that is incorrect. People who actively participate on HN are a group more diverse than is often given credit, and I strongly believe there is nothing “everyone knows” here. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ Just nine days ago, someone on HN was vaguely aware of the idea but did not know it’s called the default mode network. How many more aren’t even aware of the idea? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043 Not knowing the name means you’re not aware of all the details, intricacies, studies and ideas pertaining to it. Finally, even if everyone knew about it that would still not be reason to not talk about it. Talking and doing something repeatedly is how you create habits and change behaviour. Same way you should still call out when someone does something bad even if “everyone knows they do it”. > I think it starts to become a choice. (…) we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it. That is called blaming the victim. There are multiple billion dollar corporations and industries actively working to get you addicted, bombarding you from every side. It’s not a simple choice of “I’m not going to engage”, rather you have to actively disengage from what’s thrown in your face all the time. It’s exhausting. You’re falling into their trap and repeating the words they want you to. It’s like a supermarket which offers 99% junk and only a tiny section of always the same selection for healthy eating (not a hypothetical, I have several like that nearby) then blaming buyers for not eating more healthily. It’s not a fair choice if you’re constantly pushing and finding ways to trick people to in one specific direction. And again, not everyone is aware of what is happening. Most people aren’t. And even those who are (which, again, is not even everyone on HN) aren’t immune.

gchamonlive 6mo ago
Fair enough. It's always tricky to generalize like this, so I wont defend that position. However, for those who know, I don't think this is blaming the victim. I think victim blaming is a form of debate simplification in this case, just like "this is life" or "shit happens". Sure there are billions of dollars invested in attention stealing mechanisms, just as there are billions of dollars invested in gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry. However, while we need as a society need to discuss mechanisms to control and maybe prohibit these practices, a functional adult human beings should be expected to create safeguards to protect themselves against this. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but my point stands. Once you are aware of things that aren't good for you, you can really only count on yourself to do something about it.

rickdeckard 6mo ago

> So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, [..] I think it starts to become a choice. ...or a subtle addiction that also creates the impression of productivity/progress/social interaction... If so, then all applicable studies on addiction should be taken into consideration as well, but their context probably doesn't even begin to cover the size of the issue here.

lvales 6mo ago

Why don't addicts chose to stop with their addictive behaviour? And this isn't an excuse btw, but if you want to understand why, this is a good place to start.

gchamonlive 6mo ago
If they don't want to, go for it. I'm all up for the freedom to choose your poison, as long as it doesn't restrict someone else's freedom of choice (like jumping off a building and landing on someone, killing you both). What I'm saying is that if you recognize booze is bad for you, but you don't do anything about it because heck there is a billion dollar industry behind it, everyone drinks and you'll die anyway, IDK it seems to me like it's mostly your fault, because you'd know where yo get help if you really wanted to. That is, of course, assuming where you live has good policies for treating people with such diseases.
- jplusequalt 6mo ago
  >there is a billion dollar industry behind it, everyone drinks and you'll die anyway, IDK it seems to me like it's mostly your fault This is an absurd statement. What good is the willpower of a single human in the face of a billion dollars of capital aimed at a society with a penchant for drinking? People are not isolated systems. We live in a society.
  - gchamonlive 6mo ago
    > because you'd know where yo get help if you really wanted to. That is, of course, assuming where you live has good policies for treating people with such diseases. You are probably not the kind of person that would read "Antichrist" and think that Nietzche was a satanist. Or that just because it's called National Socialist party, that the nazis where left-leaning, I'd wager. So why read statements in isolation?

_DeadFred_ 6mo ago

You are pitting your randomly acquired will power and your in large part unintentional stumbling through life against all of human kind's psychology knowledge, against billions of dollars spent on advertising and advertising research. That is at this point tens maybe hundreds of millions of years of acquired human knowledge how to manipulate you versus your very randomly acquired 'will power'. Have you seen the quotes coming out of the richest/most powerful companies on the planet? These are very intentional impacts by companies more powerful than entire nations. I don't think 'but your willpower' stands a chance if you want to be connected to the modern world.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
gchamonlive 6mo ago
So if you are helpless in a world dominated by the billionaires and the clerics of psychological research, what's the hope for the average person? Should we just accept our fate and waste away in endless Instagram feeds, alcohol, drugs, gambling and all forms of addiction? These need to be managed at society level, banning or taxing goods. But no amount of regulation can compensate for someone determined to destroy himself. So yeah, it's your fault. But it's also society's fault. And at the end of the day the most effective thing you have is your choice.
- jplusequalt 6mo ago
  >So yeah, it's your fault This framing is doing so much PR work for the alcohol/tobacco/social media companies of the world. Effectively removes any blame from the corporations making billions of dollars off harming our societies.
  - gchamonlive 6mo ago
    It doesn't, or it shouldn't, but you are right, they subvert any responsibility the individual has so they can offload their responsibility into them. But my mistake here is not realising that people under abstinence doesn't behave as if they had any choice. In any case, my original comment was about social media only, which I think has a lot of psychological pressure over the individual, but doesn't have the pharmacological component.