Leo Is Right: Artificial Intelligence Can Keep People Dumb

[eTorro]

Hi everyone!

The issue is that people aren't using their working memory when using Artificial Intelligence.

They don't study the solution that the AI is offering.

To me, the most important thing is to grasp what the AI teaches or offers as a solution.

I always instruct the AI to clarify every solution or answer, or what is essential, with a two or three-sentence summary. I want to understand what everything is for and why it must be used in a particular context.

Then I recall that information after I strive to grasp it—this leads to understanding, which means the enlargement of my intelligence.

I don't rely solely on AI answers—the joy comes from grasping them and embedding them into my working memory and long-term memory.

After I'm able to recall them, I make sure I understand everything. If not, that means a shortcut that is not healthy.

We must teach people that using AI must imply the use of a person's working memory for the purpose of enlarging their intelligence.

Any thoughts? I want to know if—by any chance—I'm wrong.

[Kensho]

Lately, I came across many articles talking about the same thing. I am using AI a lot since the beginning of 2023, and it has made a huge difference primarily in my business and almost in every aspect of my life. Sounds good, but...yes, it's clear that the delegation of the thinking process has somewhat declined my innate ability to create a fully self-thought result. The results, though, are far better, and there comes the trap, 'but why do it myself since the AI will do it a hundred times better, and faster?'. It's the same thing as taking steroids, heavy nootropics, etc.

Besides making people dumb, I see an emerging future pattern. I am 48 years old, so before using AI, I have built my innate cognitive abilities and robust critical thinking, so now the AI is giving me superpowers by using it as an aid, not just copy-pasting its result. The same thing applies to people who are 35+.  However, the youngsters, now 18-25, in ten years will be almost dependent on AI for their results, and regardless of how good the result of the AI will be, it will always lack behind the result of sovereign, independent human thinking. Therefore, an era is coming, where older people will be on a completely different level than youngsters. In 2035, a 50-year-old interviewing 25 year old job candidates, will be eye-rolling at the inability to originally express themselves and the obvious constructed patterns of thought. 

In 10 years, Generation X and early millennials who will be onboard the AI-train will easily dominate the world. The tools that were supposed to democratize intelligence are actually… making real intelligence rare again. 

Edited July 18 by Kensho

[Natasha Tori Maru]

48 minutes ago, Kensho said:

 'but why do it myself since the AI will do it a hundred times better, and faster?'

Creation is the birthright of humanity. I personally feel AI can be abusive in this process. Causing a retardation of creative thought and ability. I go to school with 18-24 year olds. They are stunted in some ways - especially linguistically. Not one of my classmates works without AI use. 

It is definitely a tool and can be used well. But it is almost like an intoxicating substance that needs to be regulated at this point.

I find myself tuning out if I read a passage formulated by AI, or if prose has been run through it. I love the pace and flow of real prose ejected from the unfiltered thoughts of a human.

Not to mention - the destructive environmental damage it is doing that no one seems to heed.

The amount of processing, power and water consumption the process requires is going to fuck us up if not mitigated.

[eTorro]

Once you deconstruct the ego, clarity of mind arises. Then creativity is no longer difficult. Creativity leads to mastery, and the capacity to create effortlessly is essentially mastery. 

Is mastery difficult? No. Should creativity be difficult? No.

The difficulty lies in deconstructing the ego.

When people can't read books, for example, it's because they are mentally ill or neurotic. It's not ADHD.

[Basman]

Discussion > spoon feeding answers.

The ultimate teaching style in my opinion is having a personal relationship with a mentor with which you discuss their teachings with. A lot of understanding comes from exploration. Just taking the answer that AI gives doesn't engage you intellectually with the material you are trying to learn. 

My stance is to use AI as a supplement. You want to be the one in charge of thinking because it is an act that is worth doing yourself even if you can delegate it. 

[enchanted]

You know why Aristotle didn't write anything down? because he thought the new technology of writing would make people mentally lazy. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, enchanted said:

You know why Aristotle didn't write anything down? because he thought the new technology of writing would make people mentally lazy. 

Not.... The best anecdote 🤣🤣🤣

Unless the paper can talk back..... Give ideas back. Maybe that's your experience of the writing process. Certainly not mine!

[Leo Gura]

Socrates, not Aristotle.

Aristotle wrote books you can read.

[BlueOak]

Reality is constantly interconnecting and integrating. People see this as time speeding up, but its actually just more of reality linking and connecting together.

AI is a huge jump toward that goal. - It does certain tasks so I can focus on other tasks. It links more variables, facts, insights together to form an output I can then use.

Pick better, or in this case, more intelligent tasks to do.

If I have access to 200 IQ reasoning, I will by association, gradually grow in my intelligence or at least form connections and new patterns that are superior or more intricate than what I had before. I still have the sparks, the conscious insights, the AI forms a framework around them. At least that's how I operate it.
 

Edited July 20 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

And let's be realistic here.

If you said to me AI makes people lazy because it builds their homes and prepares their food - Okay.

If you say to me it makes them lazy because its outputting pieces of paper better than they can, or throws out more cereal on a production line - So? - Who the heck wants that to be the defining part of humanity?

[Basman]

One advantage of AI is that it is good at rewording you arguments to be more precise and clear and introduce subtle nuances that you didn't think of as well as challenge the weak links in your argument and oversights. 

[Joshe]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

One advantage of AI is that it is good at rewording you arguments to be more precise and clear and introduce subtle nuances that you didn't think of as well as challenge the weak links in your argument and oversights. 

Yes, and using it like this would strengthen critical thinking and communication, build vocabulary, etc. If you use it once per day like “how do I articulate this?”, you’d see massive gains over 1-2 years. 

Most people use AI like OP described, but intelligent people don’t use it like that. Intelligent people will be enhanced by AI, and the rest, AKA those who don’t give a fuck, will be dumbed down by it, and it has to be this way as a consequence of how they are.  

In the scheme of human evolution, might has been replaced by intelligence. The mightiest is no longer the fittest. The dumb do things like buy ATVs for their kids, drive motorcycles, don’t understand invisible pathogens, and they fall behind everyday as the intelligent keep pushing forward with learning, thus creating disparity in their usefulness and in their ability to survive and thrive. If humanity survives, evolution will eventually weed out those who don’t give a fuck. 
 

Edited July 20 by Joshe