> I believe there are studies that indicate this to be true, however.

Ironically, only dumb people would draw conclusions from these rage bait "studies". I'm trying to stay open-minded, but these are incredibly unserious papers that just serve Luddite agenda.

If someone has something more convincing than 2% statistical significance of n=40 people clicking mouse slightly slower I'm all ears.

▲

a2ff6eeb0 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. In the end, it doesn't matter. We used to value someone having physical strength, but we automated away the need for that kind of work. Now, people lift as a hobby, but strength isn't particularly valued.

If we manage to automate thought so it can atrophy (and, I think we're on the way), intelligence will go the same way as physical strength.

We don't mourn the end of muscles.

▲

dgellow 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Could we stop with the Luddite label? It’s such a lazy, vague way to gesture that you find some people dumb instead of using a more descriptive term to communicate who you’re referring to. Virtually nobody who would define as AI skeptic or anti-AI identifies as a Luddite

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

wraptile 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sadly it's an apt label as many of these people don't even bother invest any effort into critical thinking and are just parotting inaccuracies due to blind bad faith rage. Calling them "skeptics" would give way too much credit as skeptic implies at least some level independent effort.

▲

amiga386 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Actually, it's an apt label because the machine looms were brought in by factory owners so they could employ less skilled operators who commanded a much lower wage, and the factory owners pocketed the difference. Skilled weavers were up in arms and smashed the machines.

Today, the purpose of AI is not to get a machine to do your job, it's to look good enough to persuade your boss to sack you and split your salary between the boss and the AI company.

	▲	wraptile an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Skilled weavers were up in arms and smashed the machines. And how did that work out of them? People conveniently ignore that part of history which seems to clearly indicate that outright destruction rarely leads to progress. With AI, I'd argue that we have much more opportunity to steer than to destroy, and the latter is not even a viable option so - why even entertain it at all? It's just raging for raging sake.

▲

jazzyjackson 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then you want Lemming, not Luddite. But even then those animals were tossed off a cliff, not blindly following.