I’m not exactly young anymore, but personally, whether it’s a printed book, a manga, an audiobook, or the internet—as long as the content is the same—I think any method of learning is fine, and it’s infinitely better than doing nothing at all.
If someone has to ask, "Is this AI?" before they can tell the difference, then at least part of their reaction is about the label rather than the content itself. If they genuinely can't tell the difference, then whether it was created by a human or by AI makes little practical difference in terms of the content.
I think it matters because for a lot of us writing and thinking happen at the same time.
Something that's been written "well" shows that someone has thought about it, maybe reframed it some way or just done something by thinking about it for a while.
AI can think, but whether it's thought about something or not it's always going to sound the same.
If you are using it to help you think fine but I think it's about effort and I would want to know how much effort you've put in.
I think that's a fair perspective. I also see writing as part of thinking. Personally, I don't mind people using AI as long as they're still doing the thinking themselves rather than outsourcing it entirely.
That's a fair point. For factual content, AI output should be verified rather than trusted blindly because hallucinations are real. I see AI more as something to challenge and verify my thinking than as something to make decisions for me.
People also say things that are untrue? So I guess it boils down to reputation and attribution. I kinda feel like there is a wierd knee jerk to pretend like “ before AI, if it was written, you could trust it” which absolutely was never true.
Generally, people have to make an active decision to spread false information, or be misinformed themselves in the first place, and that's not actually particularly common, whereas for LLMs it's just the default due to how they work and it's difficult to filter out due to how they present everything with such confidence and authority
Thing is that pre-AI even for that you need to spend time and effort.
Now those deterrent barriers are not anymore so that kind of content can be produced massively at industrial scale.
"Somewhat dishonest"? It's plagiarism. Just because you claim the output of a machine as your own instead of the writing of another human as your own doesn't somehow make it yours and not plagiarism.
If you can't tell the difference between deception and truth, does it matter whether I lied? You only focus on the labels true/false, rather then the content of what I tell you!
If LLMs start communicating with each other autonomously and develop their own internal language, the quality of human-readable code may become less important. In fact, humans might no longer be able to judge whether the code itself is good or bad.
I think future programming may look something like this: we tell a conversational interface what we want to build or what problems we have, and it acts as a front desk and translator, passing our intentions to a design-focused LLM that handles the implementation.
In a way, it would come full circle and start to look a lot like today's no-code and low-code tools.
I really admire people who can stay productive while working remotely. I couldn't. There are just too many temptations at home when no one's around to keep you accountable.
Considering AI's strengths and weaknesses, it makes sense that upper management—whose job often involves making decisions based on data and established practices—may be easier to replace with AI than frontline or essential workers, who constantly have to adapt to unpredictable situations.
But if competing companies all start using AI to make similarly rational decisions, it will become much harder to gain an edge through rationality alone. In the end, perhaps the real role of leadership is not to choose what AI considers the optimal decision, but to take responsibility for making unique bets—ones that may have a lower chance of success but offer the potential for much greater rewards.
I worked for five companies in two years about a decade ago (Pre retail Gen-AI). All of them had the exact same mission slide deck. Same goals, same priorities, same strategy.
Same here.
It makes me wonder if many companies are optimizing for the same “rational” answers, and the real advantage comes from asking different questions.
Fair point — I may have blurred the line between middle management and C-suite. Though if my CEO has been doing middle management all this time, I might have some questions for him.
My broader point was that structured decision-making is easier to automate than vision, direction, and taking responsibility for uncertain bets.
Haha, fair point. Maybe I am channeling a bit of Kirk vs. Spock. But I think the interesting question is whether AI can ever make the kind of irrational-but-successful bets that great leaders sometimes make.
While the Shatner portrayal of Kirk is hard not to like, I was always slightly irritated by the recurring transparent theme of gut winning over reason ( but then I became a scientist ).
Though not sure 'irrational' is the right term - perhaps the willingness to take a decision without all the data, because doing something is more important than being completely right. Or the willingness to do something new based on personal judgement.
Take the classic example - the iPhone - I suspect pretty much everybody working on the project, who saw the working prototypes knew it was great - 'you had me at scrolling' etc.
Could AI have predict that emotional response to the product in advance? Dunno.
Exactly. It’s funny — Japan once had a famous slogan, "Can you work 24 hours a day?" We were asking humans to become machines. Now AI is the one that can actually do it.
