It must be an epidemic of imbecility (to the non IE speakers: "inability to use tools from the lever ("baculus") on"), because I find systems I can ask questions to extremely empowering for learning.
Of course - as I have said frequently like Cato spoke of Chartago - I want them to be reliable, and substantially intelligent, and engineered through solid intellectual criteria (aiming towards truth and depth) - but even very humble LLMs have been able to occasionally return illuminating responses, when asked to explain an obscure phenomenon. Even very humble LLMs could be a leap forward when studying.
That some people fail in the ability to count because they were given calculators is certainly not inherent, not necessary. Again and again, these societies must focus on the roots - not "condemn heavy books that could cause trauma when used as projectiles".
But the trend is evident of an unduly "delegation to the machine": some symptoms friends of mine are dealing with right now are reliance on "negative blood tests" when the patient is bleeding, reliance on "car computer diagnostics" when the vehicle is sputtering...
I think a lot of this comes down to attitude to learning.
People respond to incentives. The incentives we have set up right now are that you should get educational certification (eg a degree) in order to unlock access to the best jobs.
People who are self-incentivized to learn - auto-didacts - see LLMs as a gift: if you are insatiably curious and are willing to put the effort in to learn an LLM is a hugely useful accelerant.
If you just want the end certification, cheating with LLMs in a way that doesn't help you learn much yourself is the path of least resistance.
Original source I quoted from is https://nealstephenson.substack.com/p/remarks-on-ai-from-nz
It must be an epidemic of imbecility (to the non IE speakers: "inability to use tools from the lever ("baculus") on"), because I find systems I can ask questions to extremely empowering for learning.
Of course - as I have said frequently like Cato spoke of Chartago - I want them to be reliable, and substantially intelligent, and engineered through solid intellectual criteria (aiming towards truth and depth) - but even very humble LLMs have been able to occasionally return illuminating responses, when asked to explain an obscure phenomenon. Even very humble LLMs could be a leap forward when studying.
That some people fail in the ability to count because they were given calculators is certainly not inherent, not necessary. Again and again, these societies must focus on the roots - not "condemn heavy books that could cause trauma when used as projectiles".
But the trend is evident of an unduly "delegation to the machine": some symptoms friends of mine are dealing with right now are reliance on "negative blood tests" when the patient is bleeding, reliance on "car computer diagnostics" when the vehicle is sputtering...
I think a lot of this comes down to attitude to learning.
People respond to incentives. The incentives we have set up right now are that you should get educational certification (eg a degree) in order to unlock access to the best jobs.
People who are self-incentivized to learn - auto-didacts - see LLMs as a gift: if you are insatiably curious and are willing to put the effort in to learn an LLM is a hugely useful accelerant.
If you just want the end certification, cheating with LLMs in a way that doesn't help you learn much yourself is the path of least resistance.