joaovnunes

me too. eventually I adblocked the sidebar and the navbar and most things that weren't the question, comments and answers since I went to the pages directly from search engine. It looked very clean

if it's pointless then there is no issue with defunding it, but that is the question being asked.

if a similar investment on humans would have similar or superior results then human maths is not pointless and directing the investment to AI instead is arguably a loss.

the same question can be made for other areas AI is advancing. My AI budget is over 3 times my salary. If instead of providing AI tooling the company were to raise everyone's salary by 3x, what type of results would it get? Surely it would not get 10x the amount of PRs and LoC but maybe it would get superior value in other ways.

isn't one glass a night already lack of moderation? by drinking a glass a night, or even weekly such as every friday night you're creating habit and dependency.

Great thoughts.

The decline brought by writing was not only in memorization. If in previous ages to understand something was to study deeply, eventually the definition may shift to having asked ChatGPT about it and skimmed through the response. This is discussed thorougly in Technopoly, which I'm still reading.

You should also consider that besides the effects of AI adoption in highly technical and scholarly people it will also affect a majority of average workers who may be more vulnerable to atrophy than others.

Not only that, but eventually AI will be native and people's perspective and usage will not be affected by previous generation habits. If people hardly bother to write their own emails, comments or essays then how will the AI-native generation approach that?

Although you make very solid points, I've been leaning to think that the AI effect on society will be shaped by the average user, not users such as yourself and the colleagues you observe in which case the doom-saying starts to make better sense.