> Gerlich recently conducted a study, involving 666 people of various ages, and found those who used AI more frequently scored lower on critical thinking. (As he notes, to date his work only provides evidence for a correlation between the two: it’s possible that people with lower critical thinking abilities are more likely to trust AI, for example.)
Key point. The top use case for "Artificial Intelligence" is lack of natural intelligence.
Not just anyone, people will "naturally" draw the line somewhere, and it will be in a number of different places for different people.
As the article emphasizes, "every technological advance seems to make it harder to work, remember, think and function independently …"
This is exactly what it takes for there to be a positive feedback mechanism for AI to accelerate. Almost like people havng the goal lines moved for them. Which it looks like AI has already done in spite of its notorious shortcomings.
That little quote doesn't only apply to AI, think about how it was as slide rule engineering faded into obscurity. Don't ask me how I know, that would be an even worse wall of text ;)
At one time all bridges, vehicles, aircraft and things like that were designed by people who had prevailed because their mindset was aligned with all the others who excelled at doing almost all the math necessary using only that one common tool, which was common among them because it was a best practice across so many cultures, and a leap above what they were using before. It wan't easy and it required a certain mindset which made engineering possible with such a primitive tool. Two pieces of wood.
The future's come a long way and nobody does this any more, so for the longest there's been no need for engineers to even learn how to use a slide rule, or especially not to use it professionally. Things actually did get easier. Slide rules were no longer necessary for engineering, and from that point the type of brain that could do those kinds of projects using only a slide rule has no longer been a requirement for who can become an engineer. This didn't make them stupid, engineering is still hard, naturally in many other ways.
But with that mindset that made it possible to accomplish so much with such primitive tools now largely absent, could that be why not much more is being accomplished with incredibly more advanced tools after so many decades?
I think you've hit the nail on the head, it's state-of-the-art.
Whatever the state-of-the-art at the time is.
>modern fighter jet can fly literal circles around one that was designed with a slide rule.
Yes, but not so easy to outperform the ones designed by those who had adequate talent using a slide rule, once those guys got a hold of mainframes.
Not all of those people are completely gone yet, mostly retired if still living, but they've been with us as senior engineers ever since, just dwindling numers.
But no new crops of that type of average engineer since the 1970's.
It might be beginning to show, things like B52's seem to have been impossible to replace ever since.
What are the odds of a dramatically different B52 replacement, designed today, lasting 60 years into the future and still operating routinely? If any could be made airborne by then anyway.
Key point. The top use case for "Artificial Intelligence" is lack of natural intelligence.
PS Cute choice of sample size.