There are a couple of reasons why these powerful AI tools may greatly improve human thinking. Simply put they can save a lot of search time and they find better stuff. This gives people more time to think and better information to think with.
Most jobs involve looking stuff up and many require a lot of this search work. Sometimes it is interesting but often searching is tedious, laborious or even frustrating. This is especially true when the stuff sought is hard to find.
AI often produces answers in seconds that would take humans many minutes or even hours to find. This frees up a lot of human time for doing what often comes after searching, which is thinking about what one has found. Searching is often just part of a cognitive production process.
Moreover one often has limited time for searching so makes do with what they find in that time. Only a small number of documents are looked at. AI looks at thousands of relevant documents so can often find much better answers in no time at all.
Today’s world is a world of thinking so spending a lot less time searching while also getting better information should make a huge difference. A city full of office buildings mostly produces thinking. Many people, perhaps most, think for a living.
I call it cognitive production. America is a huge cognitive production system. Calling it paperwork masks this fundamental fact.
That we do a lot of thinking and a good bit of searching online is also true of our personal lives. Spending less time searching while also getting better information could make a big difference outside of work.
By way of scale consider that if a hundred million Americans save an average of just one hour a week thanks to AI searching that is around five billion hours saved a year. These huge time savings could generate a lot of additional thinking.
Moreover the time savings could be a lot bigger than this, which is an interesting research question. How much time do people now spend searching online?
When you add in getting better information the potential benefits of AI get even bigger. Imagine being able to read thousands of relevant documents when you do a search instead of the few you can now read. This is just what the reading and reasoning chatbots do.
Estimating the benefits of all this better information is likely impossible. What is called the diffusion of knowledge is in fact a diffusion process so it is impossible to track where knowledge goes and what it does when it gets there. But there might be indicators which makes this a grand research challenge.
For example there is something called the “crocodile effect” in scholarly publishing. Journal articles are rapidly increasingly appearing in search results but click throughs to them are rapidly decreasing, which worries publishers. These two diverging trends are likened to a croc’s open mouth.
There is a good article “Responding to the Threat of Zero-Click Search and AI Summaries: How Do We Tame The Crocodile?” with a great graphic here. The term for using the AI summary is “zero-click search.”
The rapid divergence is attributed to AI search. The reading bot finds the relevant journal articles that conventional search would not find. But then the AI summaries make reading these time consuming articles unnecessary. So people are getting better information with far less effort. This is happening everywhere not just in scholarly publishing.
It is conceivable that the growing revolutionary combination of Americans getting better information with more time to think will lead to a cognitive renaissance. It is certainly worth watching for.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science. This article was first published HERE
AI often produces answers in seconds that would take humans many minutes or even hours to find. This frees up a lot of human time for doing what often comes after searching, which is thinking about what one has found. Searching is often just part of a cognitive production process.
Moreover one often has limited time for searching so makes do with what they find in that time. Only a small number of documents are looked at. AI looks at thousands of relevant documents so can often find much better answers in no time at all.
Today’s world is a world of thinking so spending a lot less time searching while also getting better information should make a huge difference. A city full of office buildings mostly produces thinking. Many people, perhaps most, think for a living.
I call it cognitive production. America is a huge cognitive production system. Calling it paperwork masks this fundamental fact.
That we do a lot of thinking and a good bit of searching online is also true of our personal lives. Spending less time searching while also getting better information could make a big difference outside of work.
By way of scale consider that if a hundred million Americans save an average of just one hour a week thanks to AI searching that is around five billion hours saved a year. These huge time savings could generate a lot of additional thinking.
Moreover the time savings could be a lot bigger than this, which is an interesting research question. How much time do people now spend searching online?
When you add in getting better information the potential benefits of AI get even bigger. Imagine being able to read thousands of relevant documents when you do a search instead of the few you can now read. This is just what the reading and reasoning chatbots do.
Estimating the benefits of all this better information is likely impossible. What is called the diffusion of knowledge is in fact a diffusion process so it is impossible to track where knowledge goes and what it does when it gets there. But there might be indicators which makes this a grand research challenge.
For example there is something called the “crocodile effect” in scholarly publishing. Journal articles are rapidly increasingly appearing in search results but click throughs to them are rapidly decreasing, which worries publishers. These two diverging trends are likened to a croc’s open mouth.
There is a good article “Responding to the Threat of Zero-Click Search and AI Summaries: How Do We Tame The Crocodile?” with a great graphic here. The term for using the AI summary is “zero-click search.”
The rapid divergence is attributed to AI search. The reading bot finds the relevant journal articles that conventional search would not find. But then the AI summaries make reading these time consuming articles unnecessary. So people are getting better information with far less effort. This is happening everywhere not just in scholarly publishing.
It is conceivable that the growing revolutionary combination of Americans getting better information with more time to think will lead to a cognitive renaissance. It is certainly worth watching for.
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
David Wojick is correct, AI does not exonerate you from thinking - you have not been made redundant, yet. To the contrary, AI enables you to think better because you have better information, but still not perfect information. You need to supply intuition, which AI does not have, and so think more broadly than AI. AI provides an opportunity to strengthen your rational faculty.
AI certainly broadened my horizons. Upon pumping my name in, it transpires that I have a daughter in Holland called Eva Vlaardingerbroek. She is a right-wing politician and political commentator, so that isn't too bad. But in reality I ain't got no daughter in Holland at all.
As an illustrative example of my above claim regarding human intuition and how AI can enhance our thinking, I asked Copilot “Does a human brain have parallel distributed processing (PDP)?” Answer: Yes. And “Is it therefore fair to say that what humans call intuition is due to the parallel distributed processing of the human brain?” Answer: Yes.
Copilot also pointed out that “It also inspired modern neural networks in AI, which borrow heavily from PDP principles.”
So, I further asked: “Does that mean that AI has human intuition, as described above or do the additional human features of experience, unconscious filtering, and emotion and reward systems mean human intuition is something qualitatively different?”
Answer: “AI has intuition-like behavior, but not intuition in the human sense.
AI replicates the mechanism (parallel distributed pattern processing) but not the phenomenology (the lived, emotional, embodied, unconscious, self-aware aspects).”
Copilot added: “If you’d like, we can go one level deeper and map specific neural network architectures (transformers, CNNs, RNNs) to specific aspects of intuitive cognition, or explore whether future AI could ever develop something closer to human like intuition.”
Like I said, you’re not redundant yet.
I've found AI can do more than regurgitate facts.
You can question "narratives" and find that much is not as straight forward or "conclusive" as what is reported especially in the media.
That alone has been very useful.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.