Hacker Neue

Preferences
bgwalter parent
> It makes no sense at all, it's cuckooland, are you all on crazy pills?

Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking. The LLM has no connection to reality, and it takes over people's minds.

boppo1
>Frequent LLM usage impairs thinking

Is there hard evidence on this?

bgwalter OP
If you are the type who prefers studies:

https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/

Otherwise, read pro-LLM blogs which are mostly rambling nonsense that overpromises while almost no actual LLM written software exists.

You can also see how the few open source developers who jump on the LLM bandwagon now have worse blogging and programming output than they had pre-LLM.

Workaccount2
I have 7 different 100% LLM written programs in use at my company daily, some going back to GPT-4 and some a recent as gemini 2.5.

Software engineers are so lost in the weeds of sprawling feature pack endless flexibility programs that they have completely lost sight of simple narrow scope programs. I can tell an LLM exactly how we need the program to work (forgoing endless settings and option menus) and tell it exactly what it needs to do (forgoing endless branching possibilities for every conceivable user workflow) and get a lean lightweight program that takes the user from A to B in 3k LOC.

Is the program something that could be sold? No. Would it work for other companies/users? Probably not. Does it replace a massive 1M+ LOC $20/mo software package for that user in our bespoke use case? Yes.

infecto
Short answer no.

Longer answer there was that study posted this week that compared it to using search and then what was it…raw thinking or something similar. I could totally understand in certain cases you are not activating parts of your brain as much, I don’t know any of it proves much in aggregate.

fat_cantor
Some preliminary evidence:

https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=44286277

infecto
Sounds like you’re taking crazy pills.

Far to early from any of the studies done so far to come to your conclusion.

bgwalter OP
The LLM proponents are so desperate now that they have to resort to personal insults. Are investors beginning to realize the scam?
infecto
It’s strange how often criticism gets deflected with claims of personal attack. You’re citing a study that doesn’t say anything close to what you’re claiming. You’re fabricating conclusions that simply aren’t there.
bgwalter OP
I quoted zero studies in the comment you respond to and had no intentions of doing so. I quoted a study as well as personal observations under duress after a citation demand appeared.
infecto
I honestly have no idea what point you’re trying to make now. You opened with bold claims and zero evidence, then acted like being asked for a citation was some kind of duress. If you’re going to assert sweeping conclusions, expect to be challenged. That’s not an attack, it’s basic discourse.
Kiro
You were the one who started with the insults.
bgwalter OP
Saying to someone "you are more intelligent if you don't use an LLM" is a compliment, not an insult.
Kiro
You're not fooling anyone.
bopbopbop7
Do you really need a study to tell you that offloading your thinking to something else impairs your thinking?

But yes, there are studies to prove the most obvious statement in the world.

https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=44286277

infecto
It’s not obvious to me but perhaps you are approach it from a biased perspective. Sure if you left all higher order function to a LLM, thinking about homework and simply parsing it all through a chatbot, of course you are losing out. There is a lot of nuance to it and I am not sure if that very first initial study captures it. Everyone is different and YMMV but I suspect it will come down to how you use the tools not a simple blanket statement like yours.

Do you really latch on to a single early study to make conclusions in the world? Wild. Next time before going down the path of rudeness, why don’t you share a real anecdote or thought. We have all seen that study linked many times already.

bopbopbop7
You asked for a study, you got a study. Yet you’re still playing mental gymnastics to somehow prove that not using your brain doesn’t impair thinking. You want an anecdote now? After dismissing a study? Wild. I doubt that will convince you if a study won’t, just grasping at straws.

And no, it’s not nuanced at all. If you stop using your brain, you lose cognitive abilities. If you stop working out, you lose muscle. If you stop coding and let someone else do it, you lose coding abilities.

No one is being rude, that’s just what it feels like when someone calls you out with evidence.

infecto
You didn’t “call me out with evidence,” you linked a single early study that doesn’t prove the absolutist claim you’re making. You’re taking a broad, complex topic and flattening it into a gym analogy. That’s lazy thinking. It’s far too early to say either positions. I also never asked for a study, I asked for the parent to back up his claims that are far exceeding anything that study may show. He has nothing. While you might be unable to hold a constructive discussion, I will repeat mine.

I suspect there are shades of gray in how these tools are being used. From one extreme end of just using it to as a magic ball of decision making where no thinking goes into the process, to the other end where a constructive Q&A style discussion is being had. I would be surprised if having constructive discussion with a LLM to not be activating the brain, but like I said, I welcome more studies to dig more as what we have so far today is not what I would call conclusive or showing much.

Green accounts being green.

bopbopbop7 (dead)

This item has no comments currently.