I don't think so, if you figured out how to use AI for work automation for example, it already makes you smart, doesn't it? Life in near future will require our strong efforts in reskilling and lifelong learning. When AI does repetitive and time consuming tasks for you, AI calling agents making cold calls and replying to clients' enquires, for instance, it saves time, which could be spent for learning.
vunderba 226 days ago [-]
In a lot of ways AI can give unskilled people just enough knowledge to be dangerous. The unfinished novel Bouvard et Pécuchet by Gustave Flaubert [1] revolves around this idea by telling a story of two clerks who come into a sizeable fortune and attempt to work their way through every branch of knowledge but failing to drink deep of the proverbial Pierian spring.
For the same level of IC, AI tools will let people show off their skills more quickly, i.e. show faster how smart or dumb they are.
For nontechnical managers, it will let them ask lots of dumb questions and have stupid ideas that need refuting much faster, "I had a conversation with chatgpt and it says we can just ...". I don't consider that dangerous, that would be too flattering, it just makes the asymmetric bullshit (Brandoloni's law?) flow more efficiently.
Daedren 226 days ago [-]
I agree, but on the other hand, they may also ask less questions because they will rely more on AI, and they will not know when the AI's hallucinating until they've spent a considerable amount of time dealing with a wrong premise.
You'll have to refute a lot more bullshit AND at a later stage/time by Brandoloni's law.
turtleyacht 226 days ago [-]
How do you refute your manager? Not only are they now biased to the answer, but without their own aesthetic (experience), it will cost you double: once to try the AI solution, and then another to try your version.
Suppose you're wrong versus the machine; they will think you are less consistent, even though every problem context carries its own nuance.
Having to, in good faith, try both avenues every time sounds exhausting.
nomel 226 days ago [-]
You're assuming the manager will dictate the design/work, without feedback. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never seen this in a technical setting, unless the manager was actually contributing to the technical work. The sorts of managers that micromanage and dictate like that don't last in technical environments, because they limit the teams technical ability to their own, and their ideas never make it past technical meetings/design reviews when others are involved.
So much of the discussion of public interaction with AI is a mirror of the same discussions with search engines when Google came along
JustExAWS 226 days ago [-]
Absolutely no one said anything like that about Google. It was universally praised as being a better search engine than what came before it like Altavista
dv_dt 226 days ago [-]
People absolutely worried about what would be done about loss of critical thinking as well as misinformation surfaced by search engine
JustExAWS 226 days ago [-]
I was around back then on Usenet (where discussions happened) and Altavista was already a thing. Where was this mass histeria being discussed? Why would they have a moral panic over Google because it was better than the search engines or the human curated catalogs like Yahoo?
fuzzfactor 225 days ago [-]
I would say that when Google came out the results were about "twice as good" as AltaVista or Yahoo.
Which is a lot but there were plenty of mainstream users by then who would not be able to perceive that full amount of difference, if at all, a lot of times.
The main things that set Google apart in everybody's mind was that there were no ads and the pledge to not be evil was interpereted to mean they never would have ads. There was plenty of that already and people were tired of it.
That's the only promise they needed to break before they would be able to become the company they are today.
Their original reason for existing.
SMAAART 226 days ago [-]
LOL, well said.
I have been thinking along the same lines, but you said it better.
fuzzfactor 226 days ago [-]
I don't think it's going to make anybody smarter, but they may seem smarter than they really are, and realistically some will be way more capable of accomplishing what they want to do.
The truly stupid will also seem smarter than they really are, just like anybody else, which is bound to fool more people than before.
And some dangerous people will use it to seem much less dangerous than they really are, when perhaps there is better-concealed escalation.
So if people are not careful, the upside of nobody getting any smarter may not be well-balanced against a downside that nobody knows how low it could go.
ActorNightly 226 days ago [-]
I agree.
However we arent even close to AI. We just got better search engines.
rolph 226 days ago [-]
the sophomore [wise-fool].
a state of knowing enough to encounter danger, but not enough to mitigate.
225 days ago [-]
Rendered at 06:51:47 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvard_et_P%C3%A9cuchet
For the same level of IC, AI tools will let people show off their skills more quickly, i.e. show faster how smart or dumb they are.
For nontechnical managers, it will let them ask lots of dumb questions and have stupid ideas that need refuting much faster, "I had a conversation with chatgpt and it says we can just ...". I don't consider that dangerous, that would be too flattering, it just makes the asymmetric bullshit (Brandoloni's law?) flow more efficiently.
You'll have to refute a lot more bullshit AND at a later stage/time by Brandoloni's law.
Suppose you're wrong versus the machine; they will think you are less consistent, even though every problem context carries its own nuance.
Having to, in good faith, try both avenues every time sounds exhausting.
Which is a lot but there were plenty of mainstream users by then who would not be able to perceive that full amount of difference, if at all, a lot of times.
The main things that set Google apart in everybody's mind was that there were no ads and the pledge to not be evil was interpereted to mean they never would have ads. There was plenty of that already and people were tired of it.
That's the only promise they needed to break before they would be able to become the company they are today.
Their original reason for existing.
I have been thinking along the same lines, but you said it better.
The truly stupid will also seem smarter than they really are, just like anybody else, which is bound to fool more people than before.
And some dangerous people will use it to seem much less dangerous than they really are, when perhaps there is better-concealed escalation.
So if people are not careful, the upside of nobody getting any smarter may not be well-balanced against a downside that nobody knows how low it could go.
However we arent even close to AI. We just got better search engines.
a state of knowing enough to encounter danger, but not enough to mitigate.