Usually when things are "in our individual hands" it ends very poorly.

This is because humans are actually extremely easy to exploit. Our biology is very stupid and also dumb, so even basic attacks can cause us to self-destruct.

And that's how we get obesity, smoking, war, I mean... you name it.

LLMs are basically perfect. While I'm sure some people, somewhere, can theoretically exist attacks from LLMs, on the whole I'm not sure that will be the case.

> When I read pieces like this all I think is, resistance to change is a helluva drug.

When I read comments like yours, I’m reminded of (though I’m not comparing you to—I believe you are arguing in good faith) the cryptocurrency shills saying anyone who is against cryptocurrencies is just jealous they didn’t get in on the gold rush; they are incapable of imagining or accepting other people have their own reasons beyond what the author can themselves conceptualise.

When people criticise cryptocurrencies, NFTs, the Metaverse, LLMs, they’re not just stubbornly “resisting change”. Those technologies have important issues and repercussions which should be addressed, we shouldn’t just accept change unquestionably.

> Of course, this all depends on using AI to enhance cognition and access to knowledge, as opposed to just letting a machine write all your code for you without review, Yegge-style.

And the latter is exactly what is going to happen and is already happening in large enough quantity that it’s going to be a serious problem.

> But the one about "endangering human development" is wholly in our individual hands. You can use AI to help you learn, or to replace the need to learn.

That completely ignores the loss of skill that happens without you realising, as you lean more on a tool.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

This is nothing new. We already know that e.g. heavy GPS use makes us weaker at navigating on our own.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62877-0

> One real lesson from this is perhaps that we need to teach people how to use AI in ways that benefit their development, not just their output.

Yes, that is a good goal. But good luck achieving it.

I think it depends on the person. As a teacher, I see this. Some kids (the gifted ones) use AI to multiply their efforts. Most kids use to just get by and are actually coming out of the class with less knowledge than they would have without one.

As I see it, LLM’s require far more self-discipline and introspection than people expect or generally engage in.

It’s a corner cutting machine that allows people to shift the burden of their work on to others either in the form of more slop we have to wade through OR more work we have to correct because they couldn’t bother to vet the results.

It’s like writing a paper, running spellcheck, then sending it to some less to look over for you without ever taking a pass yourself. It’s selfish.