HN Reader

Through unlimited amusement, entertainment, and connection we are creating a sad, boring, lonely world.

(I realize this might be a weak point for many people.)

Are we still treating low n-size fMRI studies as anything more than a clout-seeking exercise in confirmation bias?

But he got it wrong-- for most it doesn't need to be better than what they'd do themselves, it doesn't even need to be particularly good.

Plenty of people would prefer to put out AI copy even when they suspect it's worse than what they'd write themselves because they take less personal injury when it turns out to be flawed.

Even for supposed critical thinkers, on average we’re not all that original.

I think its on the person to realize whether A.I. is becoming a crutch.

We should wait for the peer reviews before digging too much into it though. These are, after all, preliminary results.

AI chat bots enable passive consumption. Passive consumption homogenizes thought. It's not the only technology to do this.

I suspect that The New Yorker, and similar outlets, will stop caring when it becomes financially and socially advantageous to do so.

A culture that is ambivalent or disinterested in providing practical solutions to this problem is the greater issue.

Can "AI" fail. If yes, then what is next for Silicon Valley.

If you had previously developed these skills through widish reading and patient consideration, then tools like LLMs are like somebody handing you the keys to a wave-runner in a choppy sea of information.

But for those now having to learn to critically think, I cannot see how they would endure through the struggle of contemplation without habitually reaching for an LLM. The act of holding ambiguity within yourself, where information is often encoded into knowledge, becomes instantly relieve here.

While I feel lucky to have acquired critically skills prior to 2023, tools like LLMs being unconditionally handed to young people for learning fill me with a kind of dread.