Wow, this is more existentially depressing and terrifying than any x-risk doomer prediction of grey goo and engineered viruses. You got a knack for that, Trace. Don't let it be chabuduo'd away.
Hmm, maybe I should use an AI to write my comment here, it might be the proper response.
"ChatGPT, please write a comment of around 500 words about the idea that technological changes always have people bemoaning the supposed damage it will do to the human intellect. Reference that Socrates complained about the mental degeneration which would be brought about by the peril of the newfangled "writing". Include also the moral panic of the dangers of "calculators" and similar."
I'm not sure if that would be proving, or disproving, the point.
Every time people talk about Socrates and writing, I think about how every few years people rediscover the lost Greek art of "mnemonics" and marvel at all the clever memory techniques the ancients knew. Every new wave of technology brings real benefits, but doomsayers are very often correct on their narrow concerns.
I predict that in a generation or two, the few experts standing will be the people absolutely obsessed with the process/love of the game. You know, the weirdoes who put in the thousands of hours of reps because they enjoy it (while most people consider it a slog).
I learned how to write as a kid because I liked writing. I couldn't *not* write. I'm sure lots of artists, as kids, couldn't *not* draw all the time. They'll be the last holdouts of expertise.
"The process of skill development is laborious, frustrating, and often humiliating, because at the beginning, learners are far from “chabuduo.” They are simply 差 (chā): falling very short indeed."
re. "most people may never develop most intellectual skills past a rudimentary level, relying instead on good enough tools to create things skilled professionals might cringe at but that are far outside the capacity of novices to produce in any given domain.":
My experience is that chatbots now discourse with knowledge, reason, and open mindedness beyond that of all but a small fraction of people. most people have never been exposed to fair argumentation on that level before. chatbots especially outclass people in that they have no sacred beliefs; they can be swayed if your evidence and reasoning is solid. they will admit it immediately if you point out factual or logical errors in their argument. So I think they will improve the reasoning of people who use them, just as a good teacher, who marshals evidence and admits errors, does so even while lecturing.
This is all painfully true. I work in legal marketing, particularly in blog writing, and so many of our recent hires have let AI take over their writing AND their thinking. We’ve lost formerly decent employees whose brains turned into AI oatmeal. The unfortunate reality is that, in our profession at least, AI can make so-so writers good enough that they can get the job done, and most people can’t tell the difference.
Ironically, I've been trying to learn Chinese from apps over the last few months and (a) it's a lot of work, (b) it's oddly heartening to think if I just put in enough work for long enough I'll get better, (c) I still worry there's a hard cap on my abilities if I use apps because there's some lookups I resort to using the app dictionary for, and (d) I just learned chabudou yesterday.
For a newsletter writing about the degradation of careful thought, making newcomers puzzle out who actually wrote the thing is an especially ridiculous bit of avoidable friction.
My own, probably unusual, experience has been that I've been writing much MORE since AI became good, because the quality of the AI's analysis depends in part upon the quality of its prompt. So, if you want the best possible analysis of the question that you're concerned with, you should carefully set out the question and its possible answers in essay form, and then use the essay as your main prompt.
I found that this practice of writing things out very carefully had a couple of funny effects. First, I came to understand the topics in question much better than I did before, and second, I began to see which answers were more likely to be correct-all before I solicited any feedback from AI.
Writing carefully is a way of thinking well, and people who outsource it with lazy prompts will make themselves stupider. Saying that you don't need to write anymore because we have AI is like saying you don't need to walk anymore because we have mobility scooters. It will lead to the cognitive equivalent of WALL-E world.
Did the “cha” overlap between “ChatGPT” and “chabuduo” help spur this article or is that just a cherry on top? Obviously I know the Chinese pronunciation is something way different, but to a Chinese-nonknower like myself, I even saw the “duo” as adding to the wordplay.
I edited the post to make it clearer, but the mention of Math Academy was meant to be a positive one. It's a great platform, and it illustrates how quickly people can learn while also providing a good example that "faster" does not mean "instantaneously" – there is always going to be a long hill to climb in serious subjects.
Wow, this is more existentially depressing and terrifying than any x-risk doomer prediction of grey goo and engineered viruses. You got a knack for that, Trace. Don't let it be chabuduo'd away.
Hmm, maybe I should use an AI to write my comment here, it might be the proper response.
"ChatGPT, please write a comment of around 500 words about the idea that technological changes always have people bemoaning the supposed damage it will do to the human intellect. Reference that Socrates complained about the mental degeneration which would be brought about by the peril of the newfangled "writing". Include also the moral panic of the dangers of "calculators" and similar."
I'm not sure if that would be proving, or disproving, the point.
Every time people talk about Socrates and writing, I think about how every few years people rediscover the lost Greek art of "mnemonics" and marvel at all the clever memory techniques the ancients knew. Every new wave of technology brings real benefits, but doomsayers are very often correct on their narrow concerns.
I write more about this in my review of Amusing Ourselves to Death: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/book-review-amusing-ourselves-to
I predict that in a generation or two, the few experts standing will be the people absolutely obsessed with the process/love of the game. You know, the weirdoes who put in the thousands of hours of reps because they enjoy it (while most people consider it a slog).
I learned how to write as a kid because I liked writing. I couldn't *not* write. I'm sure lots of artists, as kids, couldn't *not* draw all the time. They'll be the last holdouts of expertise.
Wonderful article!
"The process of skill development is laborious, frustrating, and often humiliating, because at the beginning, learners are far from “chabuduo.” They are simply 差 (chā): falling very short indeed."
In fact they might even by "cha hen duo" 差很多!
re. "most people may never develop most intellectual skills past a rudimentary level, relying instead on good enough tools to create things skilled professionals might cringe at but that are far outside the capacity of novices to produce in any given domain.":
My experience is that chatbots now discourse with knowledge, reason, and open mindedness beyond that of all but a small fraction of people. most people have never been exposed to fair argumentation on that level before. chatbots especially outclass people in that they have no sacred beliefs; they can be swayed if your evidence and reasoning is solid. they will admit it immediately if you point out factual or logical errors in their argument. So I think they will improve the reasoning of people who use them, just as a good teacher, who marshals evidence and admits errors, does so even while lecturing.
The concept of chabuduo seems quite noble to me. Find out what works, if you scrap all the other unneeded baggage.
This is all painfully true. I work in legal marketing, particularly in blog writing, and so many of our recent hires have let AI take over their writing AND their thinking. We’ve lost formerly decent employees whose brains turned into AI oatmeal. The unfortunate reality is that, in our profession at least, AI can make so-so writers good enough that they can get the job done, and most people can’t tell the difference.
Ironically, I've been trying to learn Chinese from apps over the last few months and (a) it's a lot of work, (b) it's oddly heartening to think if I just put in enough work for long enough I'll get better, (c) I still worry there's a hard cap on my abilities if I use apps because there's some lookups I resort to using the app dictionary for, and (d) I just learned chabudou yesterday.
For a newsletter writing about the degradation of careful thought, making newcomers puzzle out who actually wrote the thing is an especially ridiculous bit of avoidable friction.
My own, probably unusual, experience has been that I've been writing much MORE since AI became good, because the quality of the AI's analysis depends in part upon the quality of its prompt. So, if you want the best possible analysis of the question that you're concerned with, you should carefully set out the question and its possible answers in essay form, and then use the essay as your main prompt.
I found that this practice of writing things out very carefully had a couple of funny effects. First, I came to understand the topics in question much better than I did before, and second, I began to see which answers were more likely to be correct-all before I solicited any feedback from AI.
Writing carefully is a way of thinking well, and people who outsource it with lazy prompts will make themselves stupider. Saying that you don't need to write anymore because we have AI is like saying you don't need to walk anymore because we have mobility scooters. It will lead to the cognitive equivalent of WALL-E world.
Did the “cha” overlap between “ChatGPT” and “chabuduo” help spur this article or is that just a cherry on top? Obviously I know the Chinese pronunciation is something way different, but to a Chinese-nonknower like myself, I even saw the “duo” as adding to the wordplay.
Disagree on the Math Academy take, its actually a really good platform
I edited the post to make it clearer, but the mention of Math Academy was meant to be a positive one. It's a great platform, and it illustrates how quickly people can learn while also providing a good example that "faster" does not mean "instantaneously" – there is always going to be a long hill to climb in serious subjects.