In the long run, LLMs make us dumber

The engine provides artificial strength, granted, but AI does not provide artificial intelligence. It's a misnomer.

That kind of describes the experience of retired people who do sudokus to stave off dementia. I suspect it's a bit akin to going from being a lumberjack to doing 10 squats a day though.

"Almost everyone lives a life closer to that of nobility or the merchent class"

I'm sure the vast majority of the people from that time would rather live in ours if explained that way.

Curious how the "AI" going to replace thought, as it is incapable if creating anything. Its just statistically matching data patterns for G-d's sake, don't make it something anything beyond that

I do use it for learning and to help me access new concepts I've never thought about but if you're not proving what it's writing yourself and understanding what its written yourself then I hope I never have to work on code you've written. If you are, then you are not doing what the article is talking about.

Every developer that uses LLMs believes this. And every time they are objectively measured, it is shown that they are wrong. Just look at the FOSS study from METR, or the cognitive bias study by Microsoft.

If you understand how this applies to writing can you not connect the dots and realize that it is giving you a false sense of productivity?

Whoa, whoa, are we talking Bryan Ferry as an artist, or Bryan Ferry as a guy? Because I love me some Roxy Music but have heard that Bryan is kind of a dick.

This is the reality of a lot of us, poor ESL plebs

Plato was not against writing. In fact, he wrote prolifically. Plato's writings form the basis of Western Philosophy.

Plato's teacher Socrates was against writing, and Plato agreed that writing is inferior to dialog in some ways; memory, inquiry, deeper understanding, etc.

We know this because Plato wrote it all down.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Plato appreciated the advantages of both writing and the Socratic method.

This excerpt is a bit of the dialogue where Socrates is quoting some legend that takes place in Egypt.

On other parts of the dialogue, when speaking directly, Plato says that anyone can plainly see that writing in itself is not negative.

There is also a great bit where he warns that relying on texts solely to learn without guidance of other learned people opens oneself to misinterpreting the text and learning all the wrong things from it.

Much like you did.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-dont-need-wor...

Not really sure why the geometry and color gradient of the world needs to be captured in a skeletonized syntax and semantics when our body is evolved to experience them directly.

To some extent plato wrote though, which is mostly how we can learn about him, but most of his writings are dialogues between characters.

Also a lot of what we know is written by his disciples.

I find prompt fettling a great way of getting to grips with a problem. If I can explain my problem effectively enough to get a reasonable start on an answer, then I likely thoroughly understand my problem.

An LLM is like a really fancy slide rule or calculator (I own both). It does have a habit of getting pissed and talking bollocks periodically. Mind you, so do I.

Calculators don't solve problems, they solve equations. Writing didn't kill our memories because there's still so much to remember that we almost have to write things down to be able to retain it.

If you don't do your own research and present the LLM with your solution and let it point out errors and instead just type "How do I make ____?" it's solving the entire thought process for you right there. And it may be leading you wrong.

That's my view on how it's different at least. They're not calculators or writing. They're text robots that present solutions confidently and offer to do more work immediately afterwards, usually ending a response in "Want me to write you a quick python script to handle that?"

A thought experiment, if you're someone who has used a calculator to calculate 20% tips your whole life, try to calculate one without it. Maybe you specifically don't struggle because you're good at math or have a lot of math experience elsewhere but if you have approached it the way this article is calling bad, you'd simply have no clue where to start.

The bit of the dialogue you quote is Plato telling a story.

On another bit he says directly: anyone can plainly see there is nothing detrimental about writing itself.

And further down the line he warns against relying on text solely to learn and not other learned people because you might lose context and internalize the wrong interpretation.

Much like you did.

Good question!

Writing or calculators likely do reduce our ability memorize vast amounts of text or do arithmetic in our heads; but to write or do math with writing and calculation, we still must fully load those intermediate facts into our brain and fully understand what was previously written down or calculated to wield and wrangle it into a new piece of work.

In contrast, LLMs (unless used with great care as only one research input) can produce a fully written answer without ever really requiring the 'author' to fully load the details of the work into their brain. LLMs basically reduc ethe task to editing not writing. As editing is not the same as writing, so it is no surprise this study shows an serious inability to remember quotes from the "written" piece.

Perhaps it is similar to learning a new language wherein we tend to be much sooner able to read the new language at a higher complexity than write or speak it?

It was helpful, I got pretty far along in collegiate math without tutors or assistance thanks to the hard calculation skills I drilled into my head.

But, counterpoint, if I leave my calculator/computer/all in one everything device at home on any given day it can ruin my entire day. I haven't gone 72 hours without a calculator in nearly a decade.