Except that (1) the other party doesn't become smart, (2) the one who delegates doesn't become stupid, it just loses the opportunity to become smarter when compared to a human who'd actually do the work.

▲

soraminazuki 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

You're in denial. (1) The other party keeps learning, (2) the article cites evidence showing that heavy AI use causes cognitive decline.

▲

casey2 4 days ago | parent [-]

The evidence it cites is that paper from 3 months ago claiming your brain activates less while prompting than actually writing an essay. No duh, the point is that you flex your mental muscles on the tasks AI can't do, like effective organization. I don't need to make a pencil to write.

The most harmful myth in all of education is the idea that you need to master some basic building blocks in order to move on to a higher level. That really is just a noticeable exception. At best you can claim that it's difficult for other people to realize that your new way solves the problem, or that people should really learn X because it's generally useful.

I don't see the need for this kind of compulsory education, and it's doing much more harm than good. Bodybuilding doesn't even appear as a codified sport until well after the industrial revolution, it's not until we are free of sustenance labor that human intelligence will peak. Who would be happy with a crummy essay if humans could learn telekinesis?

	▲	soraminazuki 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's a lot of words filled with straw man analogies. Essentially, you're claiming that you can strengthen your cognitive skills by having LLMs do all the thinking for you, which is absurd. And the fact that the study is 3 months old doesn't invalidate the work. > Who would be happy with a crummy essay if humans could learn telekinesis? I'm glad that's not the professional consensus on education, at least for now. And "telekinesis," really?
	▲	bigbadfeline 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> No duh, the point is that you flex your mental muscles on the tasks AI can't do, like effective organization. AI can do better organization than you, it's only inertia and legalities that prevent it from happening. See, without good education, you aren't even able to find a place for yourself. > The most harmful myth in all of education is the idea that you need to master some basic building blocks in order to move on to a higher level. That "myth" is supported by abundant empirical evidence, people have tried education without it and it didn't work. My lying eyes kind of confirm it too, I had one hell of time trying to use LLM without getting dumber... it comes so natural to them, skipping steps is seductive but blinding. > I don't see the need for this kind of compulsory education, and it's doing much more harm than good. Again, long standing empirical evidence tells as the opposite. I support optional education but we can't even have a double blind study for it - I'm pretty sure those who don't go to school would be home-schooled, too few are dumb enough to let their uneducated children chose their manner and level of education.

▲

lazystar 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

well, then it comes down to which skillset is more marketable - the delegator, or the codong language expert.

customers dont care about the syntactic sugar/advanced reflection in the codebase of the product that theyre buying. if the end product of the delegator and the expert is the same, employers will go with the faster one every time.

▲

ModernMech 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's how you end up in the Idiocracy world, where things still happen, but they are driven by ads rather than actual need, no one really understands how anything works, somehow society plods along due to momentum, but it's all shit from top to bottom and nothing is getting better. "Brawndo: it's got what plants crave!" is the end result of being lead around by marketers.

	▲	lazystar 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		isnt this what assembly devs would have said about c devs, and c devs abput python devs?