←back to thread

446 points walterbell | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.43577188[source]
> Participants weren’t lazy. They were experienced professionals.

Assuming these professionals were great critical thinkers until the AI came along and changed that is a big stretch.

In my experience, the people who outsource their thinking to LLMs are the same people who outsourced their thinking to podcasts, news articles, Reddit posts, Twitter rants, TikTok videos, and other such sources. LLMs just came along and offered them opinions on demand that they could confidently repeat.

> The scary part is that many users still believed they were thinking critically, because GenAI made them feel smart

I don’t see much difference between this and someone who devours TikTok videos on a subject until they feel like an expert. Same pattern, different sources. The people who outsource their thinking and collect opinions they want to hear just have an easier way to skip straight to the conclusions they want now.

replies(7): >>43577644 #>>43577708 #>>43578846 #>>43580309 #>>43600948 #>>43611361 #>>43614276 #
1. low_tech_love ◴[] No.43578846[source]
The pull is too strong, especially when you factor in the fact that (a) the competition is doing it and (b) the recipients of such outcomes (reports, etc) are not strict enough to care whether AI was used or not. In this situation, no matter how smart you are, not using the new tool of the trade would be basically career suicide.