Ask HN: Cognitive Offloading to AI
12 comments
That reminds me of one joke that I heard recently:
- Dad, dad, do you and your colleagues use artificial intelligence at work?
- Oh, dear, we don't even use natural intelligence...
As they say, every joke has a grain of truth in it. There are people who, in principle, do not think about why they do something or what the consequences will be. That's just the way they are.
- Dad, dad, do you and your colleagues use artificial intelligence at work?
- Oh, dear, we don't even use natural intelligence...
As they say, every joke has a grain of truth in it. There are people who, in principle, do not think about why they do something or what the consequences will be. That's just the way they are.
[deleted]
"what does that say about the thought they put into their work, even if they’re using AI for everything coding related?"
They don't know because the AI did it for them.
They don't know because the AI did it for them.
I think the question is why didn't you ask the AI and then if you need more information ask the human including what you learned from AI.
If I thought AI would have given me the answer I needed then I would have used it.
Sometimes it seems that the primary "benefit" / use case for AI is that people can use it, and if it outputs something useful then they look like they are AI early adopters, geniuses, etc, and if it outputs something dumb, then it's not their fault, it's the AI.
Either way, they get the upside, and apparently now it's your job to sort the AI slop from the reality, for some reason.
A few times, I have pointed out to people that their AI slop is wrong, and they said "yeah, it's wrong sometimes, but humans are also wrong sometimes, so it's no better/worse". It's the same logic as self-driving cars that kill people being fine, because after human-driven cars also kill people. It's true, but that's a _problem_....
Either way, they get the upside, and apparently now it's your job to sort the AI slop from the reality, for some reason.
A few times, I have pointed out to people that their AI slop is wrong, and they said "yeah, it's wrong sometimes, but humans are also wrong sometimes, so it's no better/worse". It's the same logic as self-driving cars that kill people being fine, because after human-driven cars also kill people. It's true, but that's a _problem_....
Quite honestly that sucks. To quote someone elsewhere on the internet, "offloading the most human interaction to an AI implies that you're only as human as the AI."
[deleted]
> Some of them return a very clearly AI response, sometimes completely missing the point. What’s the point?
The point is as always: to get the work "done" faster.
> If I wanted an AI response I’d have asked it myself.
Such people are generally not bright enough to see the difference, so certainly not bright enough to realise you can.
The point is as always: to get the work "done" faster.
> If I wanted an AI response I’d have asked it myself.
Such people are generally not bright enough to see the difference, so certainly not bright enough to realise you can.
theSBUguys(1)
The USA is also building concentration camps.
Sometimes people refuse to acknowledge humanity.
Sometimes people refuse to acknowledge humanity.
This bothers me a bit because if I can expect this kind of response, what does that say about the thought they put into their work, even if they’re using AI for everything coding related?