alt Hacker NewsThis has not been true in my experience. The bar of what is possible has been moved dramatically. So my daily quest is not to continue to achieve our old objectives, but rethink worthy objectives for our new tools.
Replies
The article is not about the output but on the process. Sure you can produce more and more quickly with AI, but at the price of losing the ability to do the same without it. And that's been true in my experience
If anything, I would claim the opposite ( and agree with you )
Not only has AI allowed me to start projects without knowing all the steps ahead of time, it has helped me proceed through each of those steps to completion.
"For the first experiment with 354 participants, one group was tasked with solving 15 basic fraction problems without help, while another had ChatGPT open on the side to use for assistance and to even ask for the answer. The group with AI access started off more accurate than the group without it. Then, after 12 problems, researchers took away the AI tool. Almost immediately, the people in that group stopped solving questions accurately."
Looking at the design of the experiment, it seems everyones brain was primed to think "I have AI at my disposal" ... and then had the framework shattered when it was taken away, which could have affected the test.
Perhaps this study exposes "conversational mindset" versus "mathematical mindset" switching times ?
Theres only one thing I'm certain of ... Claude loves me. :D
Exactly! The sheer effort of having AI produce good results, from writing, to planning, to coding is immense. I have consistently gather all my energies and focus to guide agents to the ideal, maintainable, and usable solution. Often it is me that makes the crucial design contribution.
Yes, I could be lazy and just vibe piles of slop. But anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time using AI (more than the articles 10 minutes), knows that quite extreme concentration and effort is required to build ambitiously with agents.
I feel like I work harder and and with more difficult problems than before AI, just at a much faster pace and scope.
When faced with AI some companies are looking for employees to fire to achieve same goals cheaper. Other companies are looking how to uplift their employees to expand their capability and excelence.
Maybe the same thing happens at the level of individual persons. I think the difference is whether you felt limited or competent. If you felt competent you shrink. If you felt limited, you grow.
I think this still leaves much of the concern the article points towards open. If we come across an objective that remains tedious or annoying, does AI create pressure towards thinking that it must not be a good objective and some AI-enabled objective would be better?
The blasé attitude with which people talk about “moving up the stack” as if it’s a foregone conclusion that it’s the right thing to do or even an accurate description of what’s happening is easily one of the most disheartening aspects of this whole movement.