I have some sympathy for these kids. If LLMs were around when I was a student, I would've also used them to "speed up" my homework assignments then proceed to fail all my tests.

Now I work mostly with PhDs who were at the top of every academic environment they've ever been in. And yet I can see their thinking skills rapidly declining as well; many of them can no longer brainstorm, code, think deeply, or write without an LLM present doing 90% of the work. Many of them can no longer sit quietly for even 30 minutes just thinking on their own, which is a required skill for producing original thought.

For adults the cognitive decline won't be as measurable since there's no exams, and overall output volume will still be fine due to LLM help. But I do believe it's already happening absolutely everywhere around us. Honestly, I wanted to be in denial about it before but it's too obvious to ignore now.

▲

qsort a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

I'm dumb as a rock and I don't have a PhD, but since ~1 year ago I started forcing myself to do small bits of coding and math manually.

I'm not noticing a "cognitive decline" per se, but I do see I'm a lot "lazier", even stuff that used to be routine when I started coding now feel heavy.

▲

adi_kurian 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do any of said PhDs gain anything positive from LLM usage? Or does it only lead to declining thinking skills in your view?

▲

dosisking a minute ago | parent | next [-]

It depends on the field, but an Economist with a PhD is a huge red flag and anything they say should be ignored.

Other fields may be different. YMMV

▲

thedevilslawyer 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

They're incredibly more productive. LLMs are amplifiers, so where they'd have branched and tried out N things, they can easily try 5N pathways of RnD. LLMs are extending the frontiers of science fast -- math -> phy -> chem -> bio in that order.

	▲	steve_adams_86 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In my own experience, the only path I truly gain intellectual benefits is the one where I work closely with the LLM, test very narrow hypotheses, and leverage it for learning over producing. Trying 5N paths is useful and sometimes yields interesting insights I’ll retain, but it’s not the rich, challenging, deeply engaging kind of process I find I need in order to develop useful knowledge and skills. So yes it’s an accelerant for people who want stuff from me, but that doesn’t map directly to learning and building skills. I think that mismatching is really important.
	▲	cootsnuck 20 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm hearing different from PhDs. The bottleneck with much research isn't "trying out ideas" so much as it's all the bureaucratic minutiae, grants, mentoring PhD candidates, collaboration with other researchers, etc. I've heard LLMs can be helpful in limited targeted ways. But not as some kind of "game changing" accelerant.
	▲	ElProlactin 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The AI is among us.

▲

altmanaltman 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Many of them can no longer sit quietly for even 30 minutes just thinking on their own

Sorry, but I highly doubt that. Has a very "old man yells at clouds" vibe.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

I doubt that you doubt that. I think you actually believe they're speaking truthfully and in good faith.

▲

Finbel 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

I doubt it. I'm stupid and I use LLMs a lot but I can still meditate for 30 minutes.

But apparently some of the smartest people in the world have lost the skill? But the commenter haven't, because why, they're 15 years older and thus immune to the same LLM-effects?

Plus, the issue with people having trouble sitting still for 30 minutes precede LLMs with decades.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm stupid and I use LLMs a lot but I can still meditate for 30 minutes. > apparently some of the smartest people in the world have lost the skill? > But the commenter haven't > why? Perhaps because a correlation you assumed was there (more smartness = more ability to sit still alone with one's thoughts), is not actually as strong as you thought? If one does not start with that assumption, there is no inherent conflict in the 3 pieces of evidence you cited.