| ▲ | itmitica a day ago |
| Why would cognitive overload work better? AI is a tool to help you see the forest from the trees. You reading articles the old fashion way can be akin to seeing the trees but not seeing the actual forest. Young minds tend to learn. How they do it, the old fashion way, the new AI way, they will learn. Many blank out in school on different subjects and the cognitive overload byproduct follows them all their life making them wary of new things. And finally, maybe you, personally, are reaching a limit in your comprehension of the modern world, and you show it by fighting the wrong battle with the wrong arguments. Or maybe you are onto something. |
|
| ▲ | legacynl a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Why would cognitive overload work better? I don't know where you get the 'cognitive overload' term from (it's not in the article). But it general; cognitive effort is what drives our brains to learn in the first place. As an organ in an organism, the brain is very adverse to using energy, because the organism might need it later to run or fight some danger. Learning costs energy, and the brain rather doesn't if it doesn't need to. The only reason that the brain will ever learn anything, is if you repeatedly expose it to 'cognitive effort', because in this case the effort of learning will save energy in the long run. If you use AI so that most things don't require cognitive effort, your brain will not use those learned neural pathways, and they will atrophy over time. The only thing that the brain learns from using AI is that the most efficient way of doing anything is having the AI do it for you. |
| |
| ▲ | itmitica 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm going to comment on two subjects. One, if cognitive overloading is not in the article, then it's good, it means I actually put some thought in the responding effort. Two, AI expands possibilities for those that want that, and offer shortcuts for those that want that. No different from any other learning process: you could actually learn something or you could just do it. It makes sense, not all humans seek learning, but most humans look for results and answers. | | |
| ▲ | legacynl 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what your interpretation of 'expanding possibilities' is, but I suspect that those are shortcuts in some way too. If you only use AI to help you search the internet, you'll become less adept at searching yourself. If AI allows you to do something that you aren't able to do yourself, it is allowing you the shortcut to not have to learn that thing. | | |
| ▲ | itmitica 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | AI is expanding my thinking possibilities. Mastering a certain form of internet search does not mean you are learning, it means you are mastering, to some degree, a tool to search. Shortcuts are OK here, per me. Learning comes when you actually go beyond tool-use skills. To be more explicit, the time learning a tool is not time used learning, it's time used preparing for learning. AI cuts that, if you want, and you get straight to actually learning something instead of tripping over tools and infrastructure, becoming too overloaded to be able to see the forest from the trees. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bogzz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The last four words would have sufficed. |
| |
|
| ▲ | mpalmer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Why would cognitive overload work better? You mean the state of affairs humans have enjoyed for the last four millennia? The status quo that led to all of the technology you seem to think we now can't live without? > Many blank out in school on different subjects and the cognitive overload byproduct follows them all their life making them wary of new things. They should try putting their phones down before we double down on solving tech problems with more tech. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47456153 |
| |
| ▲ | itmitica a day ago | parent [-] | | You are over simplifying and sending confusing signals. There was/is constant progress that constantly demanded/demands more tech. Without more tech, the progress would have/would stalled. | | |
| ▲ | JohnFen 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is only a loose connection between technological advances and progress. Depending on how you define "progress". Technological advances have held back or reversed progress in many areas, just as it has advanced progress in others. To talk about "progress" as if it were some sort of simple, objective thing is misleading. The real issue isn't about progress. It's about what sort of lives we want to be living. | |
| ▲ | legacynl a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are multiple ways that people and society can progress, and most of them have nothing to do with tech. | | |
| ▲ | itmitica a day ago | parent [-] | | More details please. | | |
| ▲ | legacynl a day ago | parent [-] | | Unless you're being willfully obtuse, I'm sure you can come up with your own examples of how some changes in society, culture or politics could massively improve the lives of everyone. | | |
| ▲ | itmitica a day ago | parent [-] | | You are willfully evasive, so I'm going to take this as a sign not to waste any more time. | | |
| ▲ | legacynl 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps some cultural phenomenon convinces people to start taking washing their hands after the bathroom very seriously, preventing tens of thousands of deaths every year. It's a stupid example, but no tech would be needed. There's loads of problems in the worlds (wars, disease, famine, etc) that can be massively improved (progress) without any change in tech. | | |
| ▲ | itmitica 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Should we go into how much tech is involved with making soap? Or how much tech is involved with running water facilities? Or how much tech is involved with transitioning from outside toilets to modern toilets? Cultural phenomenons are helping none, without the tech to back it up. In fact, cultural phenomenons not backed by tech are the ones making our society a regressive one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gmerc a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I’m sorry what? Look at the world, overrun in slop and say this again with a. straight face |
| |
| ▲ | itmitica a day ago | parent [-] | | You are assuming slop is only an AI feature. You know the anecdotal aunt in the old days, confidently hallucinating answers? One had to carry half-truths all the time, and things are still the same now. Only now, the mitigation can come sooner than later. From an AI model near you. | | |
| ▲ | mpalmer a day ago | parent [-] | | You really should read the linked article if you're going to comment this much. | | |
| ▲ | itmitica a day ago | parent [-] | | If you have meaningful commentaries, I'm ready to learn from them. |
|
|
|
