How I see it, LLMs aren't really much different than existing information sources. I can watch video tutorials and lectures all day, but if I don't sit down and practice applying what I see, very little of it will stick long term.

The biggest difference I see is, pre-LLM search, I spent a lot more time looking for a good source for what I was looking for, and I probably picked up some information along the way.

OP here, yeah, I think that's a really good point.

I feel like the way I'm building this in is a violent maintenance of two extremes.

On one hand, fully merged with AI and acting like we are one being, having it do tons of work for me.

And then on the other hand is like this analog gym where I'm stripped of all my augmentations and tools and connectivity, and I am being quizzed on how good I could do just by myself.

And based on how well I can do in the NAUG scenario, that's what determines what tweaks need to be made to regular AUG workflows to improve my NAUG performance.

Especially for those core identity things that I really care about. Like critical thinking, creating and countering arguments, identifying my own bias, etc.

I think as the tech gets better and better, we'll eventually have an assistant whose job is to make sure that our un-augmented performance is improving, vs. deteriorating. But until then, we have to find a way to work this into the system ourselves.

> We'll have to discover where to draw that line in education and training.

I'm not sure we (meaning society as a whole) are going to have enough say to really draw those lines. Individuals will have more of a choice going forward, just like they did when education was democratized via many other technologies. The most that society will probably have a say in is what folks are allowed to pay for as far as credentials go.

What I worry about most is that AI seems like it's going to make the already large have/not divide grow even more.

> It is an incredible accelerant in top-down 'theory driven' learning

Is it? People claim this but I really haven't seen any proof that it is true.

Ryan Anderson: Are We Having Fun Yet? https://www.instagram.com/itsryandanderson/reel/DRR241Mjr_F/

Ah man...that's good.

But maybe both of those are in the category of undesirable things.

And the things we end up with are like art and baking and walking and talking and drinking coffee and such.

Professional Chess is a nice pattern here. A calculator can beat Magnus Carlsen at this point, but Chess is more popular than ever. So it should be ok if AI/Robots are better than us at all the stuff we still decide to do.

Anecdotally LLM vibe coding has sucked ass on the big robotics monorepo I work on

Very cute. Hardware has very different challenges than software. If you want to get into robotics, it's a growing field with a lot of jobs and money!

Maybe cleaning house and doing laundry needs to start being marketed as an art form /s

If you need to believe that everyone's only in it for their investment portfolio, for you to sleep well at night, I mean, you do you, but recognize that that's a giant balloon of copium you're huffing.

I think that comes down to documenting the mindset as a goal and then using all the AI, scaffolding, and tools available to that system to help you nurture that mindset.

How many senior developers do you need to tell you that they've been vastly surpassed (in coding) by AI before you believe them? The creator of Claude Code just said he's not opened an IDE in a while. He was a principal engineer.

And why would you think this would be the only place that'll happen?

I agree there are things they can still do better than AI, but coding isn't one of them.

That's why the whole thing has to start with you identifying what you consider core to yourself.

> There is no "separation of moving things on the job vs. moving things at the gym" when it comes to creative craft...

- Coming up with names for cities in a role-playing game you're making - Summarizing an idea that you're writing about - Doing research for an article - Brainstorming character names - Creating an aesthetic for a new website for a customer - Etc, etc.

I could go on for days with these examples. And so could any AI.

Pre-2022 ALL these were done 100% by a human.

Now they're not. Now creative people are using AI to help them massively with tons of these. So, yes, the separation needs to happen there as well.

For example, maybe you say, I'll never use AI to help me name characters. Or to come up with plot lines. Or whatever.

That's a Gym vs. Job distinction.

You do realize that the entire point of the post is to be cautious of AI, right?

And to make sure that you have your own personal goals separate from it, and that if you're getting help from it you need to make sure it's in line with those goals.

Right?

What about that do you disagree with?

Does it really matter how the LLM got to a (correct) conclusion?

As long as the explanation is sound as well and I can follow it, I don't really care if the internal process looked quite different, as long as it's not outright deceptive.