Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Perhaps, but I find when I use AI (for fixing things), I learn a few things here and there as the AI-provided answers are often wrong. And when I work around these errors, the learning occurs.by jgalt212
- I thought the article was going to be about countless millions of minds trying to win the internet lottery and merely reinventing the wheel or failing.
I'm not worried about AI taking jobs. I'm worried that humanity has lost the ability to share at such a monumental level that basic sustenance and financial security are out of reach, even with AI.
After lifetimes of negative reinforcement, the only salvation seems to be the disruption of capitalism itself. Somewhat ironically, the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world seem to be investing trillions of dollars into AI to do just exactly that.
by zackmorris - The pseudo-academic style of the article is awful. All abstractions and buzzwords, no examples. Also, the tragedy of the commons concept is far older than 1968. The term "common" refers to common grazing land upon which anyone could graze animals. That's an English term. The American equivalent is "open range".
Getting past that, the author has a point. There's a loss of shared expertise when there aren't people around learning and doing something. In the US, we've seen this in manufacturing. The number of Americans who know how to set up a good production plant is much lower than it was in the 1980s. That's the consequence of the hollowing out of American manufacturing. The author talks about AI vs. white collar work, but fails to make the connection with outsourcing vs. blue collar work.
The loss of this expertise has recently been made very clear in the US as attempts are made to scale up weapons production for the US's various wars. Progress is very slow, as has been seen with both artillery ammo and air-defense missiles.
by Animats - We will look back on this era as one of transition. AI is in its "look monkey can do tricks how cute" era - but it won't be long. For instance the era of "whoa" is happening right now in mathematics (Anthropic researchers are pushing math's frontier with little more than the prompt "you can do it" - ie. brute force), and in coding agents we're crossing over - look into leading-edge benchmarks like SlopCodeBench that are pushing labs to RL for long term codebase health and not just problem-solving. The reason I say coding agents will go in this direction is labs are competing to have the most appealing models and so seeking out new unsaturated benchmarks they can hill-climb and show flashy results from, demonstrate to customers they're the best and deserve spend.
What these cognitive tools do is make the mundane work we're lamenting the loss of redundant. Who cares if junior devs can't code? When this stuff really gets going they'll be using their answer boxes to both code AND to have have design discussions with a form of intelligence that has every PhD ever obtained and infinite patience.
Consider: long division used to be in school curricula; our forebears had to know it to be considered "educated"; and yet I, in my 40s, was never taught long division.
Where did it go?
by cadamsdotcom - My approach is to write a bit of totally AI-free code every day. So after a day of Claude, I'll spend at least 30 mins wrestling with something. The gnarlier the better, e.g.leet code or Project Euler-type stuff. I think of it as like lifting weights for the mind. The more I struggle at the edge of my knowledge and skill the better.
The other thing is to give your agent a skill not to solve certain key problems unless explicitly prompted. Write the scaffolding sure, but leave the juicy parts alone. And if I get stuck, I have it enter into a dialogue with me, nudging me towards understanding.
by jmfldn - Similar to the argument made by John Blow several years ago. Though, Blow blamed frameworks/engines and layers of abstractions. I wonder if the authors came to this framing themselves, or listened him.by culebron21
- For anyone that does LLM supported work it's crystal clear that skill decline is real. Surprisingly, the leadership at my work doesn't give rats ass about it. They published AI engineering manifesto, pushing for loops, workflows, advocating for producing many times more code. All of this ignoring the elephant in the room.by xendo
- A new and growing fear I have is that AI cuts off some of the most well-trodden pathways to intellectual growth. Every time the AI solves a problem that I would not have been able to efficiently solve alone, it has replaced an interaction that previously would have happened with a mentor/supervisor/code reviewer. This is faster for the person seeking the micro-assistance, but there is a flipside: fewer human-to-human acts of mentorship and shared problem solving. We lose a lively ingredient of team formation, expert formation, and a source of joy for all involved. As this scales up it feels plausible that we end up with a wider deagradation of intellectual standards. I like the Cognitive Comons framing.by io84