> it happened when we achieved a level of such constant stimulation (...) that we’re never bored and never engage the default mode network.
I don't know... I don't disagree, but I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this.
So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, without having some time to be bored, I think it starts to become a choice. We can blame tech for starting this trend of stealing our attention, but once we become aware of this, we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it.
Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes. And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth.
I’m not denying (at all) that unused skills languish. I take issue with AI being characterized as a magic eraser that mystically makes people forget what they have already learned. I’ve just done a study and concluded that dogs gets dumber when I throw a ball. What’s my evidence? They stop staring at me to chase it. The ball definitely made them forget who I was, so we shouldn’t allow dogs to have balls anymore.
Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills?
Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills?
I would argue that's a misuse of AI. If the point of an engineer is to know how things work behind a piece of software, then shipping code without an understanding how it all works is a failure.
You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you?
So instead of focusing on AI as a productivity tool, focus on AI as a means of adding rigor and understanding to your workflow.
> You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you?
If it was as easy to stress test/battery test/materials test/etc a bridge as it is to test code - then yes. I'd trust an engineer who vibe-engineered a bridge.
---
The problem with mapping digital problems into meat-space is that there is inherently a few orders of magnitude of cost automatically added to anything that happens in meat-space.
I can spin up an arbitrary number (10, 10k, 500k) docker instances, X with fuzzed inputs, Y with explicit edge cases, Z with tolerance testing, etc etc. And if that doesn't work - I can fix and push a button and it just happens again.
If a bridge engineer could do that with bridges - yes I'd expect them to be vibing just as hard as we are now.
> this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes.
The linked Wikipedia page has plenty of evidence and studies and you can find plenty more with a basic web search. This is not something someone just made up; if you don’t know there are a multitude of studies on the harms of social media, you haven’t looked at all. Which is fine, it’s our prerogative to not search for information, but don’t turn around and say it doesn’t exist or is anecdotal.
> And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI.
You said, ironically without providing evidence, in the same paragraph that you complained about evidence not being provided for something else which has plenty of it. Furthermore, there are several studies suggesting AI may in fact decrease productivity, but I’m not going to link to those because the more important point is AI has nothing to do with the conversation. The original poster mentioned AI, but this branched thread is exclusively about the “liking to learn” part.
> And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI. Release schedules are increasing, bugs are getting fixed faster, security issues identified and patched sooner, so on and so forth.
I didn't see anything in parent chain that implied this. Nor did I see it "characterized as a magic eraser"; I saw it framed as something that impedes learning, and that was tied back to constant simulation.
> Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes
The arguments I read and the argument you seem to be replying to seem to be different things.
Why don't addicts chose to stop with their addictive behaviour?
And this isn't an excuse btw, but if you want to understand why, this is a good place to start.
If they don't want to, go for it. I'm all up for the freedom to choose your poison, as long as it doesn't restrict someone else's freedom of choice (like jumping off a building and landing on someone, killing you both). What I'm saying is that if you recognize booze is bad for you, but you don't do anything about it because heck there is a billion dollar industry behind it, everyone drinks and you'll die anyway, IDK it seems to me like it's mostly your fault, because you'd know where yo get help if you really wanted to. That is, of course, assuming where you live has good policies for treating people with such diseases.
> So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, [..] I think it starts to become a choice.
...or a subtle addiction that also creates the impression of productivity/progress/social interaction...
If so, then all applicable studies on addiction should be taken into consideration as well, but their context probably doesn't even begin to cover the size of the issue here.
> I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this.
I promise you that is incorrect. People who actively participate on HN are a group more diverse than is often given credit, and I strongly believe there is nothing “everyone knows” here.
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Just nine days ago, someone on HN was vaguely aware of the idea but did not know it’s called the default mode network. How many more aren’t even aware of the idea?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043
Not knowing the name means you’re not aware of all the details, intricacies, studies and ideas pertaining to it.
Finally, even if everyone knew about it that would still not be reason to not talk about it. Talking and doing something repeatedly is how you create habits and change behaviour. Same way you should still call out when someone does something bad even if “everyone knows they do it”.
> I think it starts to become a choice. (…) we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it.
That is called blaming the victim. There are multiple billion dollar corporations and industries actively working to get you addicted, bombarding you from every side. It’s not a simple choice of “I’m not going to engage”, rather you have to actively disengage from what’s thrown in your face all the time. It’s exhausting. You’re falling into their trap and repeating the words they want you to. It’s like a supermarket which offers 99% junk and only a tiny section of always the same selection for healthy eating (not a hypothetical, I have several like that nearby) then blaming buyers for not eating more healthily. It’s not a fair choice if you’re constantly pushing and finding ways to trick people to in one specific direction.
And again, not everyone is aware of what is happening. Most people aren’t. And even those who are (which, again, is not even everyone on HN) aren’t immune.
Fair enough. It's always tricky to generalize like this, so I wont defend that position.
However, for those who know, I don't think this is blaming the victim. I think victim blaming is a form of debate simplification in this case, just like "this is life" or "shit happens".
Sure there are billions of dollars invested in attention stealing mechanisms, just as there are billions of dollars invested in gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry. However, while we need as a society need to discuss mechanisms to control and maybe prohibit these practices, a functional adult human beings should be expected to create safeguards to protect themselves against this. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but my point stands. Once you are aware of things that aren't good for you, you can really only count on yourself to do something about it.
We do all what we can as individuals, but it's not enough. The obesity crisis is going unabated except GLP-1 drugs to clean up the mess.
we can also apply regulations but they are also not enough, otherwise people wouldn't OD on controlled substances. At one point the individual needs to start taking responsibility for their actions.
> gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry
Those are great examples because they show that leaving it all up to the individual is not enough. All of those are regulated by the state because we as a society recognised they were doing their damnest to screw everyone else for their own gain. Social media is going the same route, with several countries already introducing bills to prohibit them to minors.
There is another discussion to be had if we’re going about it the right way (I certainly do not support privacy invasion in the form of age checks), but it does show we’re recognising its harm.
Exactly, but I still think those are two slightly different conversations. If we are talking about harmful habits at a more general level, I'll defend that we need to be very restrictive in those examples. Online gambling, alcohol use and such shouldn't be allowed to advertise, it should pay almost prohibitively expensive taxes etc...
But if we are talking about the individual, the one inserted in the society, which is temporally bound, the conversation changes. We have to admit that it isn't enough to wait for laws and culture to change in order for the individual to be able to protect him/herself. To be a functional adult is to recognize what's around us that is harmful and do our best to protect ourselves. This is why if people recognize the harm social media is doing to their attention and to their ability to be bored they only have themselves to blame if you don't take action, because only blaming the multi-billion dollar industry for the habits they exploit won't do much for the individual.