One thing I've learned in life is to accept that I'm in many ways an outlier, which means that even if the research is done, it frequently doesn't apply to me anyway.

Like I wouldn't doubt that research could show that more time spent on youtube is inversely correlated with learning. But if you just use it to watch lectures or tutorials for some skill, obviously you will be an outlier.

Or when "research shows that dieting doesn't work," obviously the result there is "research shows that most people don't maintain a healthy diet," and it shouldn't dissuade you from doing so. Choosing to do so anyway is what makes you the outlier.

And so it will likely go with AI's effect on the brain. Most people will likely use it to avoid thinking, and the research will show it to be a disaster. A small group will use (or already is using) it to challenge them and expose them to new ideas. You can choose to be in the latter group if you'd like.

▲

voidhorse 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> One thing I've learned in life is to accept that I'm in many ways an outlier, which means that even if the research is done, it frequently doesn't apply to me anyway.

This is a complete logical fallacy. It is quite literally mathematically impossible for you to not be "typical" for at least some aspects of your life. If you weren't, you'd probably be dead, or immortal.

▲

ndriscoll 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, I expect that if you gave me the LD99 of some poison, I will die. But there are still many things (and my point is this is one of them) where all it takes to be an outlier is to decide to be one.

▲

runarberg 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I am pretty sure that likewise in the 1950s many smokers did indeed decided to be the outlier who smokes occasionally, and for the right reasons, and using the “correct” method/brand of cigarettes. And that every one of them decided that they were not gonna get addicted to nicotine. I am also sure that every single one of them did indeed get addicted to nicotine, and many of them died from cancer.

▲

kragen 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It sounds like you aren't very familiar with the research on tobacco addiction.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002204260203200220

https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-3-health-effec...

The majority of smokers did get addicted to nicotine, but significant percentages did not. However, it is true that even many "non-daily" smokers died from cancer as a result of their smoking.

	▲	runarberg 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I know that research on tobacco is full of bad science and bad actors, and experts in different fields (such as social psychology) continued to publish bad science on the topic well into the 2000s. This includes your 2002 German paper (which I can’t read because of a paywall). Your second source says nothing about addiction in the chapter you posted, however they do talk about addiction in chapter 6, and they claim that most people agree that smoking is addictive, but heavy smoking is more addictive.

▲

ndriscoll 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A better analogy is probably TV. You could watch the Flintstones (along with smoking ads!), or e.g. Mr. Wizard.

	▲	runarberg 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I am specifically talking about this cognitive bias of believing that the mean behavior does not apply to you. Very few people believe this about cigarettes anymore because the evidence is simply overwhelming and public health experts along with anti-smoking activists were able to (despite incredible odds) shift the common rhetoric closer to what is true. There is a similar phenomena going on with ads. Most people believe they are unaffected by ads, but in reality they absolutely are. And the advertising industry has vested interest in the general public believing this illusion (otherwise they risk being regulated). We are seeing the exact same phenomena with AI usage as we did with smoking in the 1950s. All the evidence is pointing towards these products being bad for you and being addictive. Yet most users of AI believe they are not addicted, and that they have found a way to use AI in a way which is less harmful for them. This is bias, these users are wrong, so are you, and so is OP. This is addictive to you, and it is bad for you. I know research is lacking, but eventually we will have the evidence to show the case as clearly as we do today with tobacco.

▲

johnnyanmac 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>You can choose to be in the latter group if you'd like.

And now you inherit the burden of proving you are "one of the good ones" after a mass amount of disappointment from the normal use case. I don't think the "it's okay, I'm different" methodology ever works out unless you can prove you are so utterly beyond the competition that you can't be ignored.

But an outlier is just that. And as we see here, outliers cannot change society single-handedly. You at least need to be an outlier good enough to convince a lot of "normal" people that you are to their benefit and be willing to lead those "normal" people.

▲

ndriscoll 21 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't need to prove anything or lead anyone or change society. You have a tool in front of you that can help you achieve your goals or distract you from them. You decide how you want to use it. Just do your thing.

> It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

▲

johnnyanmac 21 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're just saying "it's okay I got mine" in that case, and don't care if the rest of society rots because "I can use it well". Fair enough.

And I assume you never need to worry about applying to a W2 job with that mentality

▲

ndriscoll 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean sure I care. I'd love for my kids to grow into a world where everyone around them is a super jacked highly competent and motivated ubermensch, but what are you supposed to do? How are you supposed to get people to not let themselves rot other than to remind them that it's an option, and all they need to do is to decide to take it. If anyone doesn't care, it's the person who's resigned to the inevitability of rot even in the face of someone telling them they're looking at a tool for self-improvement.

▲

johnnyanmac 20 hours ago | parent [-]

>I'd love for my kids to grow into a world where everyone around them is a super jacked highly competent and motivated ubermensch, but what are you supposed to do?

I just gave an example. Use your power to lead and improve your community, and society as a whole. Use your leadership to add guardrails so the tools assist the user, as opposed to the current state of unchecked capitalism that simply extracts funds with no care for results.

You dismissed it and said to focus in yourself. Which is exactly how we get to such a situation.

This contradictory feeling of powerlessness while simultaneously striving to use such tools to influence the community simply shows why the wider population is gaining mistrust for the tech. Telling people to be better people because ot works for you has never ended well.

	▲	ndriscoll 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I influence where I can, and I have encouraged my team at work to use models as learning tools. Probe into their claims. Ask them to prove things with a quick demo/test/PoC. etc. They have tons of embedded knowledge that you can dig out. But running for president of the world so I can demand guardrails is a little out of my scope. Reminder that this reply chain was about someone saying how they use LLMs for personal growth, and someone replying that they're deceiving themselves. You don't have to get hung up on how to fix society (who were already happy to rot with TV, instagram, tiktok, etc.) and keep that from seeing a useful tool in front of you.