It's not just elevators and LLMs, we should regularly question all our technology usage. I needed to solve a statistical problem recently and it is easy to brute force an approximation by running a few million iterations on a computer. But I forced myself to attempt a theoretical solution first. It only took a few minutes to rejuvenate concepts and "foundational cognitive ability" that would otherwise be fading.
I end up thinking _more_ about many subjects, analyzing them more deeply, using AI. Before search engines, if I wondered about subject X, it was unlikely I'd have a resource at hand that could really tell me about X. Maybe ask around, see if anyone in my circle had some knowledge or an opinion. But for most topics, there were no options. No one would know what that company makes, or why tungsten in light bulbs, or whatever. And for most questions, I was not going to go to the library or start a full research project. Just too effort-intensive. Post search engines, I could do a little research, if I was really interested. Maybe 50% or 60% of the time get a reasonable answer.
Now using AI I ask a lot more questions: Why tungsten? What is this "yarn works" thing on the map? What is my local high school's per-student budget, and how does that compare to the other school districts in the state? What is this thing? What's its history? Why this not that?
I'm curious and interested in a lot of the world around me. AI doesn't seem to be making me dumber; it seems to be enabling a much higher degree of curiosity and, better yet, a much higher degree of "finding out."
You Google about why tungsten is in light bulbs, you find yourself on a website about the history of lightbulbs written by a hobbyist that has spent decades thinking about lightbulbs. You click around, link after link, your world is expanded to include this lightbulb fanatic’s.
Personally, I find LLM answers to questions completely devoid of the substance that actually matters to my curious mind. Sure, when I’m working and need a concrete answer to a specific problem, an LLM can be a great help, but for personal curiosity, to expand my world, they suck.
To me, what you’re describing sounds like learning lots of trivia, not expanding your understanding of the world.
I end up reading more sources and exploring more things. If you want to dismiss that as "trivia," or dismiss the topics I want to know about, okay. But it's important to me. You could equally deride search engines as wanton seas of advertising, and tell me I need to head to a library and its paper-based card catalog, the only true and proper way to do research. :shrug:
It's true there are a lot of weak models out there. I tend to use the frontier models, and they are great research assistants IME.
That the answers of an LLM are “sharp” and “specific” is not a good thing. You are only experiencing the subject through your own lens, through your own questions, through your own sycophantic robot. The imperfect way that humans communicate is so important to broadening our horizons. Some of the most influential learnings I’ve experienced came from tangential lines in books and blogs. And when I’m reading, sitting, thinking, letting the words bounce around my head, I am forced to reconcile ideas myself, to consider, to think. Just saying “tell me more about x” or “why is x?” every time I have a thought leaves no room to really learn and grow.
Anyway, we are all different, if your curiosity can be satisfied by LLMs summarizing, great :)
You might or might not miss that hobbyist web page. I can't say for certain, but I do know that most of my self learning explicitly includes going over the history of the topic.
Or you know, same scenario, but you are looking for information on how quanta work. You really can't make sense of the first 10 pages of google results, but you happen on "Motion Mountain" on the 11th page and you end up spending the next two years telling people the universe is made of little knots.
If that sounds like a pretty specific example, it's because it's a real one of someone I knew. I don't think the tool here is going to massively impact the quality. The person's judgement will play a way heavier role in that.
To be fair we've already had decades of advancements that allow society to more than ever avoid expending any effort on actual thought, but I can only see AI continuing and expanding the trend, not reversing it.
That's great and all, but if policy is created for the lowest common denominator because of these 100 dopamine-depleted donkeys, is it going to impact me?
It's both, I think. It seems to me that it happens during periods of fast technological advancement. We just happen to be living through a sustained period of that.
The historical precedent is that it slows down again after people get a chance to take in the new reality. I am not sure how comforting that is.
Many won't pay it any mind, but "AI" isms will slowly permeate through culture.
And AI psychosis is just the most vulnerables.