On AI: at an embarrassing age I learned that almost everyone hates reading.

[sarajw@front-end.social]

@bert_hubert I am reminded of this:

https://youtu.be/orQKfIXMiA8

It's quite a confronting video! But I do think people don't know how to stop entertaining themselves, and let their brains just think. I include myself in this.

People are also scared of getting things wrong. If they live in a fire-at-will place in the USA for example, AI use may make them feel more secure in their jobs. If something big and sad has happened to a friend, they might turn to AI to help them not say the wrong thing.

[duarte@hachyderm.io]

@bert_hubert We’re biased towards conservation of energy, so we’ll outsource whatever we can. Not everyone goes to the gym or otherwise exercises, not everyone reads, thinks, or does something kind of intellectual activity.

[bartjan@mastodon.nl]

@bert_hubert tl;dr

[bert_hubert@eupolicy.social]

@duarte the problem with this theory is that it appears thinking does not use more calories. I'd be thin by now otherwise also! The brain uses a depressingly constant 25W of power. There are some anecdotes about chess grandmasters burning through more energy, but it appears this happens through fretting and not through the brain.

[szescstopni@circumstances.run]

@bert_hubert Thinking is hard. I often outsource thinking about details – I ask people I know, when I know that they probably will have the answer in their head and this won't be an effort for them. But I do a lot of thinking before asking and it's fun

[mindaugas@mastodon.0011.lt]

@bert_hubert people think in vastly different ways (complex combinations). Some of it is described in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_Experience_Sampling There is a lot of content on this in general for further investigation.

[dancast@wandering.shop]

@bert_hubert Gollum fell into Mount Doom with the ring, saving Middle Earth. The End.

So much faster!

[leonoverweel@mastodon.social]

@bert_hubert this is why populists gain power, right? Don’t bother with critical thinking, nuance, data or research; just listen to the strong man who will tell you which evil people you should hate because they’re secretly plotting to burn down everything you love — but luckily the strong man is onto them and will protect you!

[hrbrmstr@mastodon.social]

@bert_hubert most folks regress to mediocrity b/c it's "just/good enough" and requires little to no effort. The modern "west" has been programmed to want mediocrity, and — at least in the U.S. — folks haven't been taught the various ways to interrogate the world, challenge assumptions, develop deep curiosity, etc. b/c schools just teach students how to pass tests to get to the next mediocre stage. It's hard to break folks out of it.

[porcus@hostux.social]

@bert_hubert I stand on your side , I love reading but have lacked the energy to do so recently because #life . Once I got better , I got back to books/documentation/papers and always have pleasure with it . One thing I was discussing aroud the use of LLM to 'read for you' throw me back to a form of laziness : I , most of the time , enjoy the pleasure of learning/understanding by myself, as it's quite rewarding. Maybe it's not the case for everyone. 1/2

[porcus@hostux.social]

@bert_hubert Also , my circle (social and parasocial) is usally thinkers, readers, curious people, therefor I'm not aware of someone who suffers of the learning (etc) process. Finding the purpose to do so isn't always easy, and some prefer to stay at a more ' simple ' level , but once you found something you wan't to explore , using the traditional means (no ai), feels rewarding from what i exchanged. Amazing and so current topic, thanks for raising it here.
2/2

[quantensalat@scicomm.xyz]

@bert_hubert Yes thinking is 100% painful/unpleasant for many people. If you ask me it's not much different from sports wrt to training and rewards.

[janetgrbr@mastodon.social]

@bert_hubert I just ordered some new meds at the pharmacy by mail. I didn't think it was a good idea to also give them my new email address in the same email. It probably won't be read.

[thomastc@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@bert_hubert Reminds me of Kahneman's work. Super short summary from fallible wetware memory: System 2 (the deliberate, reflective, reasoning, uniquely human part of the brain) is lazy by default, and tends to not kick into action unless triggered in the right way. System 1 is faster and more efficient for almost all inputs.

Maybe it's a matter of training, exercise, habit, call it what you will, that makes System 2 pay attention sooner in some people than in others.

[haraldki@nrw.social]

@bert_hubert

One of the more interesting thinking endeavors is math and similarly abstract gymnastics. And seeing how many (a majority of people) get a headache with math, you are probably right: thinking huts many people.

[synlogic4242@social.vivaldi.net]

@bert_hubert at first I thought you were joking. but you're serious. and I think you nailed it. I bet that explains so much of the AI uptake and enthusiasm out there. the people who like (and are good at) thinking and writing are in minority. but it is the latter that constititues the intellectual class and handles many key parts of the functional success and prosperity of modern civ.

[goose@fosstodon.org]

@bert_hubert I tend to be in it with people who have declared themselves non-thinkers. I do things by assessment, and not by rote. It really pissed a few of them off over the years.

Also, I met a lot of people who openly avoid hiring intelligent people because of the technical debt they'll create.

Same again at parties. Thinkers were aggressively hounded out of non-thinker territory.

A non-thinker tends to have ready answers, and will notice anyone belabouring the issue.

[jhaas@a2mi.social]

@bert_hubert A challenge in multiple contexts is understanding how fundamentally people are in the how and why they think.

As an example, if 3% of the people experience aphantasia, that's already a pool of people that aren't going to get the same thing out reading as those without it:

Aphantasia - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

[softwaretheron@mas.to]

@bert_hubert
Someone told me once that they voted for Margaret Thatcher because she was a strong leader.
This explains that exactly.

[goose@fosstodon.org]

@leonoverweel @bert_hubert it's sort of not wrong! A lot of intellectuals are extremely dangerous.

It's like a doctor who murders her husband. There's a good chance it will be instantly lethal, and with a minimum of fuss.

Also, think of how Einstein stimulated the Manhattan project.