> I don’t want to feel this kind of “addiction.”

> I don’t want to depend on something doing the work I earn money with.

> I don’t want to give up my brain and become lazy and not think for myself anymore.

There are a lot of good reasons we should be skeptical of AI and not give up on essential skills. But sometimes I want to shake these people by the shoulders. Do you drive an automatic car? Do you use a microwave? Do you buy food from a grocery store? Do you own power tools?

The entire point of civilization and society is that we are all "addicted" to technology and progress. But the invention of the plow did not, in fact, make us lazier or stop using our brain. We just moved on to the next problems. Maybe the Amish are have it right and we should just be happy with a certain level of technology. But none of us have "lost" the ability to go backwards if we really wanted.

You can finally ask a computer to think and solve problems, and it will! People act like this is a brave new world, but this is literally what computers were supposed to be doing for us 50 years ago! If somebody finally came out with a fusion reactor tomorrow I would half expect people to suddenly come out and say "Oh, I don't think I can support this. What about the soul of solar panels? I think cheap electricity is going to make things too easy."

Douglas Adams really put it best:

> “I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies,” writes Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt.

> 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

> 2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

> 3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

The problem is that you're likening fundamentally unlike things. AI isn't like a microwave or an automatic car or a power tool. It does not augment you. As I said elsewhere: AI is not a bicycle for the mind, it's an easy chair. You will lose more than you ever gain.

> Do you drive an automatic car? Do you use a microwave? Do you buy food from a grocery store? Do you own power tools?

None of these things allow you to turn your brain off while the machine does the work.

I still have to DRIVE the car and all the thinking that goes with that. It's not a robotaxi.

I still have to acquire and prep the food I am microwaving. It's not a replicator.

I still have to know what I want to eat before grocery shopping and prepare the food. It's not a take out restaurant.

I still have to know how to use the power tools to carefully shape something into a fine piece of furniture and not a pile of splintered firewood. Power tools can't operate on their own unless aliens (see Maximum Overdrive.)

These are better analogies:

Do you take a taxi or public transport? Those let you turn your brain off while someone or something does the driving work.

Do you go to a restaurant where you can pick what you want, turn your brain off and wait for a delicious (or not) meal?

Do you order takeout where you can order what you want form the comfort of your home, turn your brain off and enjoy the meal when it arrives? Then reheat the leftovers in the microwave.

Do you use a fabrication service where you send them a drawing, turn your brain off, and they ship you an assembled thing?

This is an insane claim:

> The entire point of civilization and society is that we are all "addicted" to technology and progress.

Technology is like much of material reality, in that we can think whatever the hell we like about its various forms, especially so if we’re surrounded by it.

> I want to shake these people by the shoulders... Do you use a microwave?

Microwaves aren't doing active problem solving though. It seems what the author is trying to say is they enjoy problem solving and they find coding a rewarding and creative experience. Sure microwaves saved at-home cooks might enjoy zapping a frozen dinner, but the author is a chef who enjoys writing their own recipes and cooking from scratch. AI isn't just the microwave, it's also the chef.

> None of us have "lost" the ability to go backwards if we really wanted

This absolutely isn't true. Using google maps quickly makes people poorer at navigation - skills need to be practiced. The author thinks letting AI into their kitchen to cook for them will change themself cognitively and make them lazy and lose their skills. And that would be true.

What it sounds like you're getting at but never said is there might be newer skills on the other side that are even more rewarding, which may be true. But if history is any indication, there will be no shortage of folks who like things the old way and want to use their meat brains to provide bespoke goods and services that AI can't.

The line is fine. Even if I use GPS a lot, I still try to keep my ability to interpret maps and find my way.

Same with calculators, even when today are dirt cheap, are not allowed in school, and being able to do math without it is a valuable skill.

So maybe there are like 2 groups of things: one where using it you are losing nothing, some where you lose some valuable ability.

Excellent point on the automatic car.

I love driving a manual transmission. But I also understood why it was so hard for me to find a new Jeep Wrangler with a manual transmission a few years ago.

Agreed, this is the aspect of the AI criticism I find strange too. We should want to be targeted in how we use it, just as how a practical fusion reactor wouldn't replace solar in every situation. Not reject it outright.

We should be using these capabilities to allow ourselves to work on harder problems. In science, there are a lot of tasks that require a low, but non-zero amount of intelligence and aren't really the most interesting part of science. Many of these tasks limit how much work can actually be done. Automate them, and you can dramatically increase your capabilities and focus on the actual science work.

I don't want any machine doing my thinking for me. This is why I am in favor of banning traffic lights. Why should I trust a machine to tell me when it's safe to stop and when it's safe to go? Plus, we could employ police officers to stand in the middle of the intersection and direct traffic, thus contributing further to employment.

;)

> Do you drive an automatic car? Do you use a microwave? Do you buy food from a grocery store? Do you own power tools

Which of these is behind a subscription paywall and owned by another party that would cut off your access immediately?

These comparisons make little sense, which is the problem with comparisons. They are soundbites from enthusiasts who don't know or understand how this technology will actually affect or shape us, but feel entitled enough to misinform the rest of us.

> The entire point of civilization and society is that we are all "addicted" to technology and progress.

I'm not addicted in any way to an automatic car. I prefer an automatic car, because it's easier to drive than a manual car. There have been numerous studies already into the problematic nature of AI addiction, and calling it simply "progress" is denuding the experiences of tons of people who have been harmed, up to and including dying, as a result of too much AI use.

> But the invention of the plow did not, in fact, make us lazier or stop using our brain.

No but industrial farming practices are not an unalloyed good either.

> But none of us have "lost" the ability to go backwards if we really wanted.

I mean, we kind of have in a few ways, at least insofar as the AI boom is concerned. I can't have a version of Windows that doesn't have copilot in it. I can't have Microsoft Office without Copilot. I can't have Photoshop without generative AI features. Like, say what you will about the AI doomsayers and yes, even this one I think is overstating it a bit? But the AI push is relentless. It's everywhere, in every product, all the time. Last time I was at Home Depot I saw an AI powered microwave for fucks sake.

And, that's not to say there are no problems at which LLMs are good solutions, but it isn't this many. I use Claude to generate code, usually boiler-plate type stuff or to help me solve problems, and it's legitimately quite good. Conversely, generated images and video have always, always looked like absolute shit to me. Generated music is... okay? But as a consumer I barely have a way to choose a non-AI future if that's what I want.

> You can finally ask a computer to think and solve problems, and it will!

Sometimes. Other times it tries for awhile and gives up. Other times it makes some shit up that would solve your problem, and Omnissiah be with you if you follow those instructions. Other times you argue with it for 10 goddamn minutes because it doesn't comprehend your instructions.

> If somebody finally came out with a fusion reactor tomorrow I would half expect people to suddenly come out and say "Oh, I don't think I can support this. What about the soul of solar panels? I think cheap electricity is going to make things too easy."

That is flatly ridiculous. LLMs do a lot of interesting things, that I will grant, but they are not the problem solver you're pitching them as, and certainly nothing like a Fusion reactor.

[dead]

[dead]

> Do you drive an automatic car? Do you use a microwave? Do you buy food from a grocery store? Do you own power tools?

The answer to these questions could easily be no, and life is way better for it.