Technology

This is a great conversation because I'm one of those people who's terrible at arithmetic, but quite good at math. As in: I can look at a function, visualize it in 3D space, see what different max, mins and surfaces are dominated by what terms etc, but don't ask me to tally a meal check. I'd be useless at applying any math without a calculator.

Similarly, there's a lot of engineers out there that use CAD extensively that would probably not be engineers if they had to do drafting by hand.

The oatmeal did a comic that distilled this for me where they talked about why they didn't like AI "art". They made the point that in making a drawing, there are a million little choices made reconciling what's in your head with what you can do on the page. Either from the medium, what you're good at drawing, whatever, it's those choices that give the work "soul". Same thing for writing. Those choices are where learning, development, and style happen, and what generative AI takes away.

That helped crystalize for me the difference between a tool and autocomplete on steroids.

Edit: to add: you're statement "I claim to understand but don't" hits it on the head and is similar to why you have to be careful if plagiarism in citing academic review papers. If you write YOUR paper in a way that agrees with the review but discuss the paper the review was referencing, and, even accidentally, skip over that the conclusion you're putting forward is from the review, not the paper you're both citing, that's plagiarism. Notion being you misrepresented their thoughts as your own. That is basically ALL generative AI.