> Ironically, I've seen people bemoaning that use of AI will rob people of that.
There's that quote from Socrates, recorded by Plato:
> For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.
Classical era philosophers weren't completely wrong about this. They lived in a more oral literary culture where performers could recite entire works from memory.
I don't think anyone today could recite Beowulf from heart. But 1500 years ago that's exactly how it was enjoyed.
Maybe not Beowulf, though it's not to exclude either, by I have no doubt that some people out there can do that for some work.
Look at these people that will declaim Pi digits, just because.
Also there are difference in education over different cultural era, not only through time but also space. I heard that India for example value more repetition, where western culture is more in love with innovation. These are of course nothing like exclusive tendencies.
Now if you look at antic Greece, it's certainly not like everyone would be able to restitute Homer word for word. Actually it's easy to forget how divided in term of linguistic and social classes this societies where, and focus solely on the most renowned figures as if they where all part of a tight social group full of solidarity and genius. Actually even a guy like Hippias of Elis can be both depicted by plato as exhibiting all the tremendous admirable feats of the time, including mastering the art of mnemonics, and yet turned into a clueless bragger that isn't even able to recognize that he just doesn't know how to define beauty.
I'm pretty sure that "recit[ing] entire works from memory" was an example of an amazing memory feat that was far more common in the past, before writing was as common. I do not think that it was a recommendation that education should consist of memorizing literary works.
I wonder if the number of people who could recite works from memory has substantially changed: while surely the prevalence of such people decreased, world population ballooned! Today we have people that can recite many digits of pi, for example.
Is this the case? I was under the impression they memorized the plot beats and filled in details on the fly. Also using set phrases or epithets like "Gray-eyed Athena" to slow down the narration and let them plan further.
And on the flipside, 廣記不如淡墨[0], lit. "a good memory is not as good as pale ink", which is these days more commonly translated as "the faintest ink is more powerful than the strongest memory".
[0] "A Record of Learning about Government" [政學錄] Magistrates handbooks, Author Zheng Duan [鄭端] (compilation), Early Qing Dynasty (1644-1796)
Y’all can throw pithy sayings at each other all you like but memory is not the same as understanding, and AI does offer plenty of opportunity for humans to cognitively disengage. Doesn’t necessarily mean most people will, but it’s very likely that most people will.
Especially if we're more concrete: If your job is, say, in administration and what the machine answers is correct enough that in in 8 out of 10 cases you can basically copy-paste it, I'd say it's extremely likely that it's going to increase the amount of errors made.
No, since the setting is not specifying the initial rate, it might as well increase or staying stable at 20%.
But there are other factors, like, is the amount of outcomes done also changing, thus affecting the absolute number of errors?
Also, does the side effect of disengage the person in most cases means it has side effects like not paying the same attention to what would stand out as a big issue that needs more attention and consideration than business as usual?
It's an interesting thing to think about. From the way it's talked about, I would predict that AI will enable people who are more cognitively inclined to think in more complex and refined ways; while other people that over-rely on the results would be the ones that decline.
However, research[1] suggests that relying on AI tools degrades reasoning and cognitive ability regardless of your cognitive ability, and may even cause users to stop making their own choices[2].
Pretty much every single spiritual philosopher has said some version of that (I'm writing a book on this subject right now, heh):
The Buddha (from the Pali Canon, Vinaya Pitaka, Cullavagga 10:4):
“Writing is like a drug that weakens memory.”
and: “Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor... But when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.”
Confucius (Analects 2:15):
“Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.”
Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 48):
“In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.”
Jesus (Matthew 16:26):
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Muhammad (Hadith, Sahih Muslim):
“The worst vessel to fill is the stomach; sufficient for the child of Adam are a few morsels to keep his back straight. If he must fill it, then one-third food, one-third drink, and one-third air.”
(This Hadith symbolically warns against excessive reliance on external consumption diminishing spiritual clarity and internal balance.)
Rumi (Masnavi):
“These outward forms are but dust and air;
Seek the reality beyond appearance and form.”
Krishna (Bhagavad Gita, 2:42-43):
“Those who are attached to pleasure and power, whose minds are drawn away by such things, have no capacity for absorption into higher states of awareness.”
Sometimes it's good to forget something, commit to written record and let it go. People can carry too much old stuff around in their heads, and it can become burdensome.
Even things like confession, or therapy, leverage this - people letting go of bad things that are hanging around in their memory.
A lot of traditions would strongly disagree with that, myself included. I would imagine you would find a lot of Gnostics who disagree, a lot of "witches" who have been literally burned over the years, and also the aboriginal people of Australia. Well, you wouldn't find so many of them, because those lines of thought have literally been beat out of our human societies in the name of progress. If it's not worthy of being in the oral tradition, it's not worthy of the society, it's not worthy thought. (unworthy thought does not need to be rigorously engaged with.)
Also remember, your conclusion itself is "the devil" - the trap of the analytical mind. :) You will likely do everything you can do avoid the fact that you may be disagreeing directly with the word of the creator as given via various prophets, if you go back to the sources, the command is quite clear, however humans will interpret it: because the command is too simple and terrifying to adhere to. It seems impossible to us that we should indeed, be doing nothing but living in nature in a state of oral tradition and anything outside of that is an unintended state, trusting that energy cannot be destroyed and we are nothing but energy. I don't particularly like it either tbh, hence I'm writing a book about it.
There's that quote from Socrates, recorded by Plato:
> For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.