The analogy makes a lot of sense to me. Once you have an “easy button”, it’s hard to not use it. It’s sort of like when you’re at work and see the “quick workaround” effectively become the standard process.

I remember burning out on games because the cheats made them really fun in the short term, but afterward playing normally felt like agony.

    • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      19 hours ago

      I don’t really see where the hypocrisy is? If you think what the commenter you’re replying to said wasn’t relevant that’s fine, but where’s the hypocrisy?

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        16 hours ago

        Here’s something I’ve been thinking about. I’ve been playing through some need for speed games on emulators for the past few years. Once I bound keys to save and load states it was over: I’d save-state before every turn and run them over and over until I got them perfect. Doing this I did eventually learn the maps really well though, and on more recent playthroughs I’ve barely used save-states, which was obviously far more satisfying.

        statement that sets the context of the comment

        I realize this isn’t the same thing as ai or walkthroughs,

        statement that disarms anyone calling “bullshit” by acknowledging the context above is useless fluff.

        but I think maybe these tools do share something in that they lower the barrier to entry to different sorts of skilled tasks we may not yet feel competent to accomplish. Like training wheels or a helping hand, we can let go of them once we feel steadier on our own.

        the hypocrisy of continuing to support an argument previously stated as “not the same thing as”.

        this is is pointless commentary from a person who is clearly not objective but is pretending to appear objective by disarming the shortcomings in their argument by acknowledging them outwardly. this is a common tactic employed by people who have a weak position and lack confidence in their argument.

        the reason why the argument lacks confidence is because there is no viable evidence that AI improves cognitive ability in humans while there is verifiable evidence that it harms cognitive abilities.

        for example:

        1. AI is being abused within schools to falsely achieve educational goals under merits that were unearned
        2. AI is currently being abused by professionals in software development that cause weeks or months of tech debt to clean up that could have been resolved during the development process
        3. AI has lead to several people dying or near dying because they have taken advice from it when it told the user to “smoke meth”, “kill themselves”, “consume bromide”, and others.

        there are so many more instances of cognitive decline available, just search for them.

    • cazssiew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      It’s just a conversation bud, I don’t disagree with op’s point, just adding another perspective. You can grow dependent on your tools just like you can use them to better yourself.