The article discusses the author’s evolution from tech enthusiast to skeptic, highlighting concerns about AI’s impact on education, creativity, and human interaction. A chilling *Black Mirror* episode raises questions on corporate control of technology. As generative AI gains traction, critical thinking stages are bypassed, risking cognitive development. Ultimately, the piece warns against the allure of efficiency that might dull our human experience.
In a striking shift of perspective, the author grapples with the ramifications of modern technology on our brains, echoing a decade-long journey from enthusiastic tech advocate to a wary observer. Growing up during the dial-up modem boom, an early fascination with tech sparked a passion for a transhumanist future. Yet, witnessing towering billionaires perpetuate inequality through tight corporate control of technology reshaped their view of innovation’s promise.
This concern deepened after watching a chilling episode of Black Mirror, which illustrates the dangerous intertwining of technology and capitalist greed. In this episode, a woman relies on an expensive subscription-based brain implant for cognitive survival, highlighting how corporate interests can warp technological potential into commodified nightmares. The episode serves as a stark metaphor for the digital world’s deterioration—yes, Google Search is indeed declining.
Looking specifically at generative AI, particularly models like ChatGPT, questions about its impact on education arise. A New York University article reveals that students, turning to AI for everything from summarizing texts to crafting entire essays, effectively bypass important stages of learning. One student’s comment likened using AI to driving instead of walking, as they searched for efficiency. At first glance, it seems pragmatic, but where’s the value in taking shortcuts?
Strolling to the store instead of driving offers many benefits, both tangible and intangible. Beyond saving the earth by reducing emissions, a 20-minute walk can improve health while fostering a sense of community connection. So, if these extras are so beneficial, what are we trading away for speed?
In a recent piece by the Columbia Journalism Review, journalists shared their mixed experiences with AI. Some use it minimally, like for transcribing interviews, while others embrace it for edits and research. Almost everyone agrees, though, that using AI to write articles crosses an ethical line. But it’s troubling that important cognitive steps in the creative process are being neglected.
Consider the work of a writer, not necessarily unique but a compiler connecting ideas into something meaningful. The author reflects on a story investigating long Covid and psychedelics—intrigued by a study about serotonin, they unearthed connections through interviews and literature searching. Could this intricate mental endeavor have been expedited by AI? Probably no, because the heart of the story came from human experience and novel connections.
The distinctiveness of true intelligence remains absent in models like ChatGPT. These systems don’t comprehend questions; they merely mimic responses drawn from huge datasets. For instance, asking it about cat colors won’t elicit real thought, just a cocktail of previously existing text shuffled together. While undeniably impressive, these LLMs decimate the richness of our cognitive processes, allowing us to overlook critical thinking stages.
Technology has long benefitted us by offloading burdens, though the consequences remain mixed. Critics warn, from Socrates’ time to today, that each advancement might dull our minds. Have calculators hindered math skills? Has GPS led to lost spatial awareness? Studies suggesting handwriting boosts memory versus typing serve as reminders—every shortcut carries a cost.
The legendary Hunter S. Thompson’s tale of typing The Great Gatsby may be apocryphal, but it resonates. What remains is the essence of thinking, feeling, and understanding in the creative process. Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, illustrates how deeply ingrained AI has become in his life, from summarizing emails to skimming podcasts. But does cramming information into snippets rob us of the experience itself?
The real danger in relying on AI for shortcuts lies in losing depth. As Ted Chiang pointed out in The New Yorker, writing is about genuine communication, yet AI veers us into a bleak cycle of slop that dampens authentic thought. “We are entering an era where someone might use a large language model to generate a document out of a bulleted list, and send it to a person who will use a large language model to condense that document into a bulleted list. Can anyone seriously argue that this is an improvement?” – Ted Chiang.
Parsing through the layers of technological dependence reveals a larger conundrum: as we quest for efficiency and speed, we might very well be sacrificing our cognitive richness. The allure of shortcutting our experiences could lead to a dull existence, devoid of the wonders of genuine interaction, creativity, and understanding. Do we dare to slow down, or risk losing ourselves in the rush?
In exploring the implications of AI, the author reflects on a personal journey from tech enthusiasm to skepticism. The influence of corporate interests on technology raises concerns about accessibility, creativity, and genuine human interaction. As generative AI reshapes education and work, it also risks stripping away the cognitive layers that come with engaging deeply with ideas. The challenge now lies in navigating the benefits of technology against the potential dulling of our intellectual lives. Perhaps, slowing down and embracing the full experience of thinking might be the antidote we need.
Original Source: newatlas.com
