Very much appreciate this piece and wholeheartedly agree - rather than spending time thinking and understanding, I now see more and more people handing off a job end to end to AI, producing slop and passing it on, with no benefit to themselves or the recipient from the judgement, editing and learning cycle afforded to the creator by the powerful tool of the agent should they choose to yoke it.
So good. Thank you for this. I would love to see you write more about the thread of how, if we let these skills atrophy, it could in fact harm our work at the frontier, locking us into the simulacrum. My sense is our hope for something better than what we have now is a wonderful resource going into the future, just as it was for the Desert Fathers, who could imagine a prize greater than anything thry already knew on Earth.
The point that effort can be part of the good itself, not just a cost, landed with me. Years of hands-on work taught me things no shortcut would have. I try to do my own thinking first and use AI to test it afterward, but I'm honestly not sure that line holds for everyone.
This was a very good read. I have to say i agree with a lot of it. And it forces one to come to terms with what actually the value of human capital actually is. It's a tough question to ponder.
Thought provoking read. I'm a power user of AI and tend to be somewhat optimistic that "we'll figure it out", but one can't help but feel we may be tearing down Chesterton's fence.
But why does the atrophying of old skills have to be pessimistic? Isn't it possible that new types of lawyers will be produced? Can't we be optimistic that the lawyers could not only be different in the future but also better?
Very much appreciate this piece and wholeheartedly agree - rather than spending time thinking and understanding, I now see more and more people handing off a job end to end to AI, producing slop and passing it on, with no benefit to themselves or the recipient from the judgement, editing and learning cycle afforded to the creator by the powerful tool of the agent should they choose to yoke it.
So good. Thank you for this. I would love to see you write more about the thread of how, if we let these skills atrophy, it could in fact harm our work at the frontier, locking us into the simulacrum. My sense is our hope for something better than what we have now is a wonderful resource going into the future, just as it was for the Desert Fathers, who could imagine a prize greater than anything thry already knew on Earth.
Interesting article. Agency and critical thinking are so important . Loved the theology paradigm though.
after suits, perhaps it is time to play games: https://posthyperstition.substack.com/p/after-necessity?r=6fuqgq&utm_medium=ios
The point that effort can be part of the good itself, not just a cost, landed with me. Years of hands-on work taught me things no shortcut would have. I try to do my own thinking first and use AI to test it afterward, but I'm honestly not sure that line holds for everyone.
This was a very good read. I have to say i agree with a lot of it. And it forces one to come to terms with what actually the value of human capital actually is. It's a tough question to ponder.
Thought provoking read. I'm a power user of AI and tend to be somewhat optimistic that "we'll figure it out", but one can't help but feel we may be tearing down Chesterton's fence.
But why does the atrophying of old skills have to be pessimistic? Isn't it possible that new types of lawyers will be produced? Can't we be optimistic that the lawyers could not only be different in the future but also better?