Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The (as yet unproven) argument for the use of AIs is that using AI to solve simpler problems allows us humans to focus on the big picture, in the same way that letting a calculator solve arithmetic gives us flexibility to understand the math behind the arithmetic.

And I can tell you from experience that "letting a calculator solve arithmetic" (or more accurately, being dependent on a calculator to solve arithmetic) means you cripple your ability to learn and understand more advanced stuff. At best your decision turned you into the equivalent of a computer trying to run a 1GB binary with 8MB of RAM and a lot of paging.

> No one knows if that's true. We're running a grand experiment: the next generation will either surpass us in grand fashion using tools that we couldn't imagine, or will collapse into a puddle of ignorant consumerism, a la Wall-E.

It's the latter. Though I suspect the masses will be shoved into the garbage disposal than be allowed to wallow in ignorant consumerism. Only the elite that owns the means of production will be allowed to indulge.



There are opposing trends in this. First, that like many tools the capable individual can be made much more effective (eg 2x->10x), which simply replaces some workers, and last occurred during the great depression. Second, that the tools become commoditized to the point where they are readily available from many suppliers at reasonable costs, which happened with calculators, word processors, and office automation. This along with a growing population, global trade, and rising demand led to the 80s-2k boom.

If the product is not commoditized, then capital will absorb all the increased labor efficiency, while labor (and consumption) are sacrificed on the altar of profits.

I suspect your assumption is more likely. Voltaire's critique of 'the best of all possible worlds' and man's place in creating meaning and happiness, provides more than one option.


I know how to do arithmetic, but I still use my PC or a calculator because I am not entirely sure that I am accurate. I use "units" as well extensively, it can be used for much more than just unit conversion. You can do complex calculations with it.

You can solve stuff like:

> If you walk 1 mile in 7 minutes, how fast are you walking in kilometers per hour?

  $ units -t "1 mile / 7 minutes" "kilometers per hour"
  13.7943771428571
You need some basic knowledge to even come up with "1 mile / 7 minutes" and "kilometers per hour".

There are examples where you need much more advanced knowledge, too, meaning it is not enough to just have a calculator, for example in thermodynamics, when dealing with gas laws, you cannot simply convert pressure, volume, and temperature from one unit to another without taking into account the specific context of the law you’re applying (e.g., the ideal gas law or real gas behavior)", or for example you want to convert 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) to watts (W). This is a case of energy (in kilowatt-hours) over time (in hours), and we need to convert it to power (in watts), which is energy per unit time.

You cannot do:

  $ units -t "1 kWh" "W"
  conformability error
  3600000 kg m^2 / s^2
  1 kg m^2 / s^3
You have to have some knowledge, so you could do:

  $ units -t "1 kWh" "J"
  1 kWh = 3600000 J
  $ units -t "3600000 joules / 3600 seconds" "W"
  3600000 joules / 3600 seconds = 1000 W
To sum it up: in many cases, without the right knowledge, even the most accurate tool will only get you part of the way there.

It applies to LLMs and programming, too, thus, I am not worried. We will still have copy-paste "programmers", and actually knowledgeable ones, as we have always had. The difference is that you can use LLMs to learn, quite a lot, but you cannot use a calculator alone to learn how to convert 1 kWh to W.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: