I find that using AI whittles away the meaningless tasks for me and reveals more of what I value. For example, I read your entire post and now it's reminded me to think about thinking. Also, I know a bit more about what I'm rebelling against besides a nebulous idea of "bullshit jobs."
I think that’s aspirational and directionally correct (indeed I wrote about the four quadrants of AI-enabled work here: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/beat-the-bot-the-four-quadrants-of), however I find that technological adoption almost always follows the same, depressing arc: first we embrace it, then we abuse it, then it abuses us.
The dose makes the poison and it’s a very slippery slope sans superhuman willpower.
I hate these four words, but they’re appropriate here: this time is different.
To mix metaphors, people working with abacuses can’t compete with people using calculators. The danger is when the easy way out becomes the only way through. I think the answer is Aristotle’s Golden Mean. Spellcheck is fine; prompting in place of thinking isn’t. The former is an assist; the latter is an abdication.
Thinking is hard, and we’re evolutionarily tuned to conserve energy—so we’ll default to the path of least resistance unless we deliberately resist it.
Again, I tend to agree. This is part of why thinking about AI is so difficult. How do you thread the needle between applying old models and "this time is different?" Guess this will be a running debate until the point of no return.
I find that using AI whittles away the meaningless tasks for me and reveals more of what I value. For example, I read your entire post and now it's reminded me to think about thinking. Also, I know a bit more about what I'm rebelling against besides a nebulous idea of "bullshit jobs."
I think that’s aspirational and directionally correct (indeed I wrote about the four quadrants of AI-enabled work here: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/beat-the-bot-the-four-quadrants-of), however I find that technological adoption almost always follows the same, depressing arc: first we embrace it, then we abuse it, then it abuses us.
The dose makes the poison and it’s a very slippery slope sans superhuman willpower.
I generally agree, but where do you draw the line between this and similar criticisms of technology going back to Plato and writing?
I hate these four words, but they’re appropriate here: this time is different.
To mix metaphors, people working with abacuses can’t compete with people using calculators. The danger is when the easy way out becomes the only way through. I think the answer is Aristotle’s Golden Mean. Spellcheck is fine; prompting in place of thinking isn’t. The former is an assist; the latter is an abdication.
Thinking is hard, and we’re evolutionarily tuned to conserve energy—so we’ll default to the path of least resistance unless we deliberately resist it.
Again, I tend to agree. This is part of why thinking about AI is so difficult. How do you thread the needle between applying old models and "this time is different?" Guess this will be a running debate until the point of no return.
Great article man!
Thank you! The more things change, the more they stay the same!