namaria

I did not say it was unfit and I don't see how discussing writing styles and the influence of LLMs on it is off topic on a thread about the effects of LLMs on cognition.

I don't believe I was impolite or making a personal attack. I had a relevant point and I made it clearly and in a civil manner. I strongly disagree with your assessment.

Wow.

The 3500 BCE date for horse ridding is speculative and poorly supported by evidence. I thought the language in the bit I pasted made that clear. "Horse being driven" means attached to chariots, not ridden.

Unless you want to date the industrial revolution to 30 BCE when Vitruvius described the aeolipile, we can talk about the evidence of these technologies impact in society. For chariots that would be 1700 BCE and horseback riding well into iron age ~1000 BCE.

I claim specifically that "I love this analogy" and "I love your analogy" have become noticeably more common in HN since 2022.

> Reminds me of Plato's concern about reading and writing dulling your mind. (I think he had his sock puppet Socrates express the concern. But I could be wrong.)

Nope.

Read the dialogue (Phaedrus). It's about rhetoric and writing down political discourses. Writing had existed for millennia. And the bit about writing being detrimental is from a mythical Egyptian king talking to a god, just a throwaway story used in the dialogue to make a tiny point.

In fact the conclusion of that bit of the dialogue is that merely having access to text may give an illusion of understanding. Quite relevant and on point I'd say.

Horse riding was invented much later than carriages, and it revolutionized warfare.

[flagged]

Maybe, much like we invented gyms to exercise after civilization made most physical labor redundant (at least in developed countries), we will see a rise of 'creative writing gyms' of some sort in the future.

Same story for me. What has really helped is trying to make initiating useful and desirable tasks easier and seeking distractions harder. Bit by bit, cultivating that mindset changes things for the better over time.

The trap is usually "I've figured it out and this new system will solve my life" only to be burned out days or weeks later because this only addresses the symptoms and not that cause.

Cultivating a more friendly environment has been a great help for me. That and taking notes.

If the solution to all problems with attaching gpu farms to our workflows is to attach more gpu farms to our workflows, I can't see how this isn't just an elaborate scam.

Increasing energy input to a closed system increases entropy.

Why on earth people expect to attach gpu farms to render characters into their codebase to not only not increase its entropy but to lower it?

Most coders prefer to throw code at the wall and see what sticks. These tools are a gas-powered catapult.

I don't think anyone is wrong, I am not here to detract from this. I just think most people want things that are very different than what I want.

This is an attempt to change software development from a put out system to a factory system.

It seems to be working sadly. If people hated agile, just wait for the prompt/code review sweatshops.

So much of what people hyping AI write in this forums boils down to "this vendor will keep making this tool better forever and management will let me keep the productivity gains".

Experience shows otherwise. Urging me to embrace a new way of building software that is predicated on benevolent vendors and management seems hostile to me.