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

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.

	▲	matsemann 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Why is it so hard to believe? The young adults now have grown up with short form media and instant gratification / dopamine hits from apps. It's vastly different than people of the same age just a few years ago. Not saying everyone else is immune, but those a few years older have also had a period without it.
	▲	camelmel 8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I didn't say I'm immune to those effects, I'm including myself in this as well. (also, I'm not older than my colleagues). Most people definitely can't meditate for 30 minutes, so if you can do this, it's very impressive. Regardless, being able to think about poorly-defined problems and build completely new mental models from nothing is genuinely a really hard and uncomfortable task. If you don't use the skill you'll lose it.
	▲	ImPostingOnHN an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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. Or perhaps because you are smarter than you give yourself credit for :)