Same, I use it to put me down research paths. I don’t take anything it tells me at face value, but often it will introduce me to ideas in a particular field which I can then independently research by looking up on kagi.

Instead of saying “write me some code which will generate a series of caverns in a videogame”, I ask “what are 5 common procedural level generation algorithms, and give me a brief synopsis of them”, then I can take each one of those and look them up

The article says stupid, not dumb. If I’m not mistaken, the difference is like being intelligent versus being smart. When you stop using the brain muscle that’s responsible for researching, digging thru trash and bunch of obscure websites for info, using critical thinking to filter and refine your results, etc., that muscle will become atrophied.

You have essentially gone from being a researcher to being a reader.

$100 billion and the electricity consumption of France seems a tad pricey to save a few minutes looking in a book…

I recently read that LLMs are effective for improving learning outcomes. When I read one of the meta studies, however, it seemed that many of the benefits were indirect: LLMs improved accessibility by allowing teachers to quickly tailor lessons to individual students, for example. It also seems that some students ask questions more freely and without embarrassment when chatting with an LLM, which can improve learning for those students - and this aligns with what you mention in your post. I personally have withheld follow-up questions in lectures because I didn’t want to look foolish or reveal my imperfect understanding of the topic, so I can see how an LLM could help me that way.

What the studies did not (yet) examine was whether the speed and ease of learning with LLMs were somehow detrimental to, say, retention. Sure, I can save time studying for an exam/technical interview with an LLM, but will I remember what I learned in 6 months? For some learning tasks, the long struggle is essential to a good understanding and retention (for example, writing your own code implementation of an algorithm vs. reading someone else’s). Will my reliance on AI somehow damage my ability to learn in some circumstances? I think that LLMs might be like powered exoskeletons for the mind - the operator slowly wastes away from lack of exercise.

It seems like a paradox, but learning “more, faster” might be worse in the long run.

I get these kinds of things all the time at work. I’m a writer, and someone once sent me a document to brief me on an article I had to write. One of the topics in the briefing mentioned a concept I’d never heard of (and the article was about a subject I actually know). I Googled the term, checked official sources … nothing, it just didn’t make sense. So I asked the person who wrote the briefing what it meant, and the response was: “I don’t know, I asked ChatGPT to write it for me LOL”.

I liked it, but maybe I’m just a big fan of Socratea. It was a little long-winded, but I thought the point of knowing when to use and when to avoid LLMs is important and well-justified.

I read the first sentence of each paragraph and decided this read was not worth my time.

Now, if AI could do that for me…!!

Hey, listen. I don’t say this to just ANYONE, but I like the cut of your jib! What’s a jib, you ask? Not important. What IS important is I’ve got an amazing deal on a bridge I’d like to sell you! See, I gotta clear my inventory space for the new models coming out soon, and this model is from the 1800s. You’ve heard the childrens song London Bridge is falling down? Yeah. Falling down in cost, and I’m passing the savings onto yooouuuuu!!!

See, most bridges cost MILLIONS of dollars, but I’ll sell it to you for only $50,000! Or my name isn’t James J. O’Brien!

It’s the same claim that was made about the radio and the written word. I’m no fan of AI, but this argument is so old, it remembers Plato.

I use LLM’s to help with math/science/coding, and the thing it screws up the most seems to be simple math (typically units/conversion issues) so I would be weary about gleaning financial advice from a chatbot.

You’re speedrunning Danning-Kruger with an impressive force

You don’t need to calculate any of that, any brokerage or website with stock quotes will provide those numbers. AI could very well hallucinate invalid numbers there, so I wouldn’t trust it for calculations.

Oh, and all of those calculations you mentioned are simple to double check, P/E is literally just price/earnings, compounding formulas exist in any spreadsheet program, etc. I can calculate any of those faster than AI can generate a response.

You don’t need AI to do that…

The maker of Deep Seek made it so it would be easier for him to do stocks

I understood those people knew it was gonna mess with all the projections for the development of the US power grid, chip manufacturing and other data center related industries by being more efficient than anything else and they just made money off that.

(picking up phone) Hello this is Sherlock speaking

If the time I save frim the summary I generate is used for stuff that is also complex then the effect is not as stated in the article.

you won’t though you’re gonna use that time to doomscroll

And for the most part this is true. People who don’t do little calculation puzzles for fun often have trouble with basic arithmetic without getting a calculator (or likely the calculator app on the phone). I know when I’m doing something like wood working and I need to add and subtract some measurements, I use a calculator. I could do it without, but chances are I would make a simple mistake and mess up my work. It’s like a muscle, if you use it, it will become stronger. If you don’t use it, it becomes weaker.

However there is a huge difference between using a calculator for basic arithmetic and using AI. For one thing, the calculator doesn’t tell you what the sums are. It just tells you the result. You still need to understand each step, in order to enter it. So while you lose some mental capacity in doing the sums, you won’t lose the understanding of the concepts involved. Second of all, it is a highly specific tool, which does one thing and does it well. So the impact will always be limited to that part and it’s debatable if that part is useful or not. When learning maths I think it’s important to be able to do them without a calculator, to gain a better understanding. But as an adult once you grasp the basic concepts, I think it’s perfectly fine not to be able to do it without a calculator.

For AI it’s a bit different, it’s a very general tool which deals with all aspects of every day stuff. It also goes much further than being a simple tool. You can give it broad instructions and it will fill in the blanks on its own. It even goes so far as to introduce and teach new topics entirely, where the only thing a person knows is what the AI told them. This erodes basic thinking skills, like how does this fit into my world view, is this thing true or false and in what way?

Again the same concept applies, where the brain is a muscle which needs to be given a workout. When it comes to a calculator, the brain isn’t exercising the arithmetic part. When it comes to AI it involves almost all of our brain.