> The author does not seem to understand that a technology is good or bad, nor in itself, but in how it is used.
The point regarding technology is a given and already understood by any reasonable person. This is not our first encounter with disruptive "technology".
The germinal point is the confluence of behavioral patterns and influences that ultimately determine how technology is used.
OP: >Everybody who uses AI is going to get exponentially stupider, and the stupider they get, the more they’ll need to use AI to be able to do stuff that they were previously able to do with their minds.
This to me is a reasonably probable outcome. It is not the only possible outcome but our record with the internet (the 90s' disruptive technology with its own +/- possibilities) is the cautionary tale. Remember voices that very clearly predicted the surveillance society in the 90s?
[p.s. consider auto-correct for spelling. Would you agree with my impression that the generation that has grown up with this (hardly disruptive) tech no longer can spell words of their own language?]
So, going back to the agreed baseline of 'how we use tools' as the critical matter, it seems (based on historic facts) that we should take 'cassandras' seriously from the very onset of introducing disruptive technology at societal scale and take the necessary steps to insure that the incentive to use a technology in the optimal manner is far greater than its misuse.
What is not helpful (at all) is to revert to the baseline and dismiss timely cautionary concerns.
The point regarding technology is a given and already understood by any reasonable person. This is not our first encounter with disruptive "technology".
The germinal point is the confluence of behavioral patterns and influences that ultimately determine how technology is used.
OP: >Everybody who uses AI is going to get exponentially stupider, and the stupider they get, the more they’ll need to use AI to be able to do stuff that they were previously able to do with their minds.
This to me is a reasonably probable outcome. It is not the only possible outcome but our record with the internet (the 90s' disruptive technology with its own +/- possibilities) is the cautionary tale. Remember voices that very clearly predicted the surveillance society in the 90s?
[p.s. consider auto-correct for spelling. Would you agree with my impression that the generation that has grown up with this (hardly disruptive) tech no longer can spell words of their own language?]
So, going back to the agreed baseline of 'how we use tools' as the critical matter, it seems (based on historic facts) that we should take 'cassandras' seriously from the very onset of introducing disruptive technology at societal scale and take the necessary steps to insure that the incentive to use a technology in the optimal manner is far greater than its misuse.
What is not helpful (at all) is to revert to the baseline and dismiss timely cautionary concerns.