Absolutely it does. In the same way Socrates warned us about books, VS externalizes our memory and ability. and makes us reliant on a tool to accomplish something we have the ability to do without. This reliance goes even further to make us dependent on it as our natural ability withers from neglect.
I cannot put it more plainly that it incentives us to make a part of us atrophy. It would be like us giving up the ability to run a mile because our reliance on cars weakened our legs and de-conditioned us to the point of making it physically impossible.
If your job for 30 years is to move bags of cement 50 miles each day, is it not more productive to use a truck than your legs? Even if you use the truck so much you could not move a bag of cement with your legs anymore due to atrophy?
You could make the same argument about most tools. Do calculators rot the brain?
Yes, they unequivocally make people worse at mental math. Now whether that's bad or not is debatable. Same with any tool, it's about tradeoffs and only you can determine whether the tradeoffs make sense for you.
>they unequivocally make people worse at mental math. Now whether that's bad or not is debatable.
Not debatable because as long as calculators exist and are available, nothing is lost. You can put that mental energy towards whatever is relevant. There's nothing special about math that elevates doing it in your own mind more valuable than other tasks. Any of us that do software for a living understand that mental work is real work and you are limited in your capacity per day. If your boss wants to pay you to do longhand division instead of getting projects done, I'd call that man a liar.
The people that make these arguments that we "lose" something are usually academics or others that aren't actually in the trenches getting things done. They think we're getting weaker mentally or as a society. I'm physically tired at the end of the day, and I sit at a desk. I'll do math when the calculators are gone, I have a lot of tasks and responsibilities otherwise.
> Not debatable because as long as calculators exist and are available, nothing is lost.
This is a vacuous argument. Of course nothing is lost if we are never in the situation where the downsides of calculator reliance are apparent. Nobody said otherwise. The point is that people do find themselves in those situations, and then struggle to do math because they've never developed the skill.
Skills have to be maintained. You don't remember everything for life. I highly doubt anyone that uses a calculator on a regular basis was never taught how to do math by hand. I was taught of course, I'm not only old but I went to university, but I would still need refreshers to really do anything of any complexity.
I don't think it's a vacuous argument, it's just reality. I can use a calculator as long as one is available, but if I'm lost in the woods, I'm still going to need a refresher because calculators are too plentiful to maintain advanced math skills.
I don't know if I'd agree with the phrasing that it rots the brain, but broadly I would expect that if you rely on it for arithmetic your mental arithmetic will atrophy over time.
Unfortunately though it may not be such an exaggeration after all. It's probably too early to say, but there is definitely mounting evidence that some of these useful tools are literally, genuinely rotting our brains.
> Unfortunately though it may not be such an exaggeration after all. It's probably too early to say, but there is definitely mounting evidence that some of these useful tools are literally, genuinely rotting our brains.
I think you may have fallen into a bit of confirmation bias there. The article you linked to words itself like so:
"According to research published in the journal PLOS One, navigating with a map and compass might help stave off cognitive decline and symptoms associated with Alzheimer’s Disease."
This means that the study found that there may be positive benefits to cognitive health when one routinely engages in navigation related activities using a compass and a map.
That is a very very VERY different statement than: "Using Google Maps causes cognitive decline."
In order to demonstrate any kind of causality between using Maps and cognitive decline, you would have to start with an additional premise that everyone engaged in navigation using a compass and map on such a regular basis that the switch represents a switch to a less healthy lifestyle.
I think that statement is specious at best.
I'm old enough to remember living without Google Maps. And the amount of time that I reached for a paper map and a compass was so infrequent that Google Maps represented something new for me more than it represented something different. That is to say, it wasn't replacing something I did regularly so much as it gave me a reason to start using any kind of a "map" in the first place.
Most people I know would say the same thing. We had some maps skills when we needed them ... but we tried to avoid needing them more often than not.
So yeah, the study might have merit. But I don't think it suggests what you think it suggests.
> I think you may have fallen into a bit of confirmation bias there. The article you linked to words itself like so:
> This means that the study found that there may be positive benefits to cognitive health when one routinely engages in navigation related activities using a compass and a map.
> That is a very very VERY different statement than: "Using Google Maps causes cognitive decline."
It is a different statement, but it is not a giant logical leap. The two statements are connected by a pretty rational extrapolation. That said, I'm not suggesting this study is claiming anything like that, just that there is growing evidence that these things might be bad for our brain health, and studies like this are part of it.
However, it's going to be really, really hard to prove that something like Google Maps is ultimately responsible for cognitive decline. In fact, I think saying that would be a step too far. However, when you combine many of these tools, like calculators, AI autocomplete, and GPS navigation together, I definitely think there is a stronger case that it is not good for our brain health, but I doubt it'll be easy to make a case for that using actual data, and I don't expect such a study to come around soon (and even if it did, I'm not sure people would feel enticed to trust it anyways.)
> I'm old enough to remember living without Google Maps. And the amount of time that I reached for a paper map and a compass was so infrequent that Google Maps represented something new for me more than it represented something different. That is to say, it wasn't replacing something I did regularly so much as it gave me a reason to start using any kind of a "map" in the first place.
I'm surprised. I thought all of us who lived before Google Maps were using Map Quest, at least for a few years. That's what I was doing. Before Map Quest, when I was growing up, we definitely did try to avoid paper maps as much as possible, but it was frequently necessary to go somewhere we didn't already know how to get to, so it wasn't unusual to have to get directions and navigate using a map.
Anyhow, I'm sure everyone experiences life differently here, but I think not needing to navigate very often is definitely something I would've considered a luxury.
I am the MapGuy(TM). I had paper maps of every destination and triptix from AAA. I would fly with a pocket Rand McNally Road Atlas and be able to identify where we were from features on the ground. I still do it but I use a GPS. I don't trust them so I still check maps before I use a GPS in unfamiliar areas. I find badly optimized routes 5% of the time and outright mistakes 1%.
I was the one who got people unlost when they got them selves lost because they did not listen to the map geek.
I hope this gives me at least 30 more years before mental decline starts. That will get me to my late 90's.
The real danger of LLMs lie in their seductive nature - over how tempting it becomes to immediately reach for the nearest LLM to provide an answer, rather than taking even the briefest of moments to quietly ponder the problem on your own.
That act of manipulating the problem in your head—critical thinking—is ultimately a CRAFT. The only way to become better at it is by practicing it in a deliberate, disciplined fashion.
However if you ultimately believe that critical reasoning isn't worth cultivating, then I suppose we're at an impasse.
How different is this argument from "does Rust rot the mind"? After all, Rust means that the part of the brain that is paranoid about careful memory safety issues no longer has to be engaged.
Like most things, the answer is that it depends. I think autocomplete is great, and I've come to appreciate LLMs doing boilerplate editing, but I'm quite worried about people using LLMs to do everything and pumping out garbage.
Great point, to me it feels more like running barefoot versus with padded shoes. Barefoot running will build your foot muscle based on your natural form over time, whereas padded shoes may interfere with your natural form and at worst encourage bad form which may lead to injuries as your mileage increases.
Over the years in building software, I tend to spend more time thinking about how all the pieces (i.e. from package manager) fit together rather than building them from scratch and fitting two pieces together require deeper understanding of both the pieces and how the combination of the two behaves in the environment.
Completely agree. Though I think this statement could benefit from pointing out that cars also help people go much faster, and do things they otherwise couldn't.
Relatedly, people who rely too much on GPS for navigation (i.e. online automated route planning), especially real-time, turn-by-turn instruction, seem to have poor spatial awareness, at least at the local geographic level. I doubt the loss of that skill is a meaningful impediment in modern life[1], but I personally would not want to lose it. Tools like Google Maps are extremely useful, but I use them to augment my own navigation and driving skills. I'll briefly study the route before departing, choose major thoroughfares to minimize complexity, and try to memorize the last few turns (signage and a practiced understanding of how highways and roads are laid out is sufficient for getting close enough).
[1] No impediment for them. It's an impediment for me when the car in front of me is clearly being driven by somebody blithely following the computer's instructions, with little if any anticipation of successive turns, and so driving slowly and even erratically.
Yes. You can see a difference between the person who learned to do a process "by hand" and then uses technology to make it faster or easier, versus the person who never learned to do it without the tech at all.
The ICE and more generally the automobile has been a great technology and has lots of benefits. But we did all huff alarming amounts of lead for a generation and built our cities around them to our detriment.
> But we did all huff alarming amounts of lead for a generation and built our cities around them to our detriment.
And yet, this has nothing to do with the ICE itself, and everything to do with the greed of the Ethyl Corporation and the generation of corrupted minions that knowingly enabled their disastrous scheme.
Cars allow people to travel longer distances more conveniently, access remote areas, transport goods efficiently, and have greater independence in their daily lives. They also enable emergency services to respond quickly, support economic growth by facilitating trade, and provide opportunities for leisure travel that were previously impractical.
They let us do things efficiently. Sure, you could have moved a truckload of goods up the coast using 20 wagons, 40 mules, 20 drivers, 10 security, and a week's time. Today, one dude can move a truckload of goods up the coast same day.
(Numbers have been entirely fabricated, feel free to send adjustments.)
Travel [long distance], relatively safely, in [short time].
LA to NY is a long roadtrip, but you can do it in 2-3 days with a few friends to rotate drivers. Walking that is a months long journey with a very real risk of death if you don't have a support vehicle.
I got yelled at once at the bank in my office's parking lot for going to the drive up ATM instead of going inside to a teller. So they definitely agree with that. Not allowed to walk through a drive through.
I think "carrying something heavy without slavery being involved" is a new capability compared to "enslaving people and making them carry something heavy".
But also gives us back time and mental capacity to do other things which were previously out of reach because of what we had to focus our minds and time on.
In some cases, maybe even many or the majority of cases, that trade isn't a bad one. It really depends on how you use it.
Socrates just argued about semantics. If you take anything away from those dialogues it should be that they were confused and didn't really have many good ideas.
I cannot put it more plainly that it incentives us to make a part of us atrophy. It would be like us giving up the ability to run a mile because our reliance on cars weakened our legs and de-conditioned us to the point of making it physically impossible.