AI and the age of de-skilling
-
The fretting has swelled from a murmur to a clamor, all variations on the same foreboding theme: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” “AI Is Making You Dumber.” “AI Is Killing Critical Thinking.” Once, the fear was of a runaway intelligence that would wipe us out, maybe while turning the planet into a paper-clip factory. Now that chatbots are going the way of Google—moving from the miraculous to the taken-for-granted—the anxiety has shifted, too, from apocalypse to atrophy. Teachers, especially, say they’re beginning to see the rot. The term for it is unlovely but not inapt: de-skilling.
The worry is far from fanciful. Kids who turn to Gemini to summarize Twelfth Night may never learn to wrestle with Shakespeare on their own. Aspiring lawyers who use Harvey AI for legal analysis may fail to develop the interpretive muscle their predecessors took for granted. In a recent study, several hundred U.K. participants were given a standard critical-thinking test and were interviewed about their AI use for finding information or making decisions. Younger users leaned more on the technology, and scored lower on the test. Use it or lose it was the basic takeaway. Another study looked at physicians performing colonoscopies: After three months of using an AI system to help flag polyps, they became less adept at spotting them unaided.
But the real puzzle isn’t whether de-skilling exists—it plainly does—but rather what kind of thing it is. Are all forms of de-skilling corrosive? Or are there kinds that we can live with, that might even be welcome? De-skilling is a catchall term for losses of very different kinds: some costly, some trivial, some oddly generative. To grasp what’s at stake, we have to look closely at the ways that skill frays, fades, or mutates when new technologies arrive.
From Atlantic:
-
Try to think of a parallel ...
Since the advent of email, and later, text messaging, people's writing skills have deteriorated. But has it really "deteriorated" or merely "changed"? The language is usually less flowery but we usually get to the point much faster with email and texting. Is that bad?
Since the common adoption of GPS navigators, most drivers' map reading and navigation skills have atrophied, with the younger generation never learn to read a road atlas; but more people are now visiting more obscure places and drive more on lesser known roads. Is that bad?
Now coming to "critical thinking." Why do we want people to think critically? Why do we want our kids and students to think critically? Is "critical thinking" an end by itself or are we trying to achieve certain personal or societal benefits through critical thinking? If the end is some other things and "critical thinking" is merely a means to achieve that end, what if AI can get us to the end faster?
-
I don't see it so much about good vs bad, because few things can be categorized that easily. I think the issues around AI involve trying to assess how it will change our lives ( I think those changes will be massive) and how to adjust accordingly.
Now coming to "critical thinking." Why do we want people to think critically? Why do we want our kids and students to think critically? Is "critical thinking" an end by itself or are we trying to achieve certain personal or societal benefits through critical thinking? If the end is some other things and "critical thinking" is merely a means to achieve that end, what if AI can get us to the end faster?
In my opinion speed is not necessarily better. And it shouldn't be the only consideration. Focusing only on efficiency ignores a whole host of other possible issues that I think we can ill afford to do. The potential societal impacts are huge.
Can we get things done faster and possibly more cheaply with minimal or no human intervention? Sure, but that leaves a very large segment of our population without jobs, with a resulting loss of income and also personal satisfaction that seems to be a basic human need for many. Even if people were "taken care of", I'm thinking a lot of them will still have a fundamental drive that will remain
As far as "critical thinking" is concerned, maybe future humans will evolve in a way that they no longer have the need for control over their lives and a need for free will, but I'm not at all certain that is likely. I personally wouldn't want to live in a society where someone else wields all the power and money and who makes all the decisions and I'm just taken care of like a pet. Or the alternative scenario, that I have no way to make a living and have to struggle to survive.
They will be interesting times no matter how things play out.
