bombs in bottles
Ever feel like someone who could not possibly have overheard your conversations is overhearing your conversations? That was my vibe this morning when I read this article from 404 Media:
404 Media: The Man Who Wants AI to Help You Cheat on Everything
I got that vibe because a friend and I had discussed, not twelve hours prior, a world in which AI HUDs or other tools could let just about anyone learn about you from available online data and then scam you in real time. Once again, what we thought was the future was actually the present.
I'm actually here to talk about this quote from Cluely's creator, which appears near the end of the 404 Media piece:
“I will never have to remember when the American Revolution was,” Lee said. “I will never have to remember what the capital of Wisconsin is. Every single thing that is rote memorization, that relies on facts that you don’t need in the moment, that are not intrinsically necessary for a human to learn, you won’t need that anymore.”
No. Wrong. Bad. Also, way to show everyone you have no idea how human cognition works.
You do need to memorize basic facts, actually. Not because you'll never be without the tools to look them up, but because having a stash of basic facts in your brain *is how you think.*
Let me back up.
Whatever else one thinks about generative AI's ability to revolutionize human activity, pretty much everyone agrees there's some nebulous concept of "innovation" that AI cannot yet do. Even enthusiasts agree, when pressed, that generative AI only remixes the data sets it's been trained on. It doesn't do "original thought."
Here's a radical statement for you: "Original thought" is the ability to make *new* connections between existing facts or concepts.
"Original thought" is what our brains do when they're full of information, facts, concepts, and so on...and our brains go "wait, what if this and that and this leads to NEW THING, though?"
AI can't do that. AI needs "NEW THING" to exist in its training set before it can make the leap from old things to NEW THING. But if NEW THING exists in its training set, it is, by definition, an old thing.
Without this raw material of thinking, your brain cannot actually reach new concepts. It cannot break new territory.
Your brain - that is to say, you - ALSO cannot make informed judgments about any number of topics.
Last week, I reviewed a middle-grade history book on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. At several points, the author/narrator stops to ask the reader: Which side is right about [insert historical beef here]? Or: Is it justifiable to [do thing] in order to [get result]?
Each time, the author/narrator says: I can't tell you that. History is complex. People are complex. You're going to have to think about it and decide for yourself where you stand.
But you cannot do this if you do not have basic historical facts. You cannot develop reasonable opinions, opinions worth holding or defending, about the American Revolution if you don't even know when it was fought. You cannot contribute a single thing worth saying to a discussion of Wisconsin politics if you don't know where Wisconsin's capital is.
Heck, thanks to humans' penchant for synecdoche, you can't even follow a conversation about the American Revolution or Wisconsin without knowing these things! It will mean nothing to you to hear, for example, "1783 upended the system" or "Madison needs to get its act together" unless you understand the significance of the year 1783 or why Madison is an important place to Wisconsinites. (Wisconsinians? Wisconsii? Cheeseheads.)
Comments like these express nothing but profound ignorance. Though I suppose it's easier to defend empty-headedness if your own head is already empty.
--