Is ChatGPT making us lazy?

As artificial intelligence technology continues to advance, it's natural to wonder about the potential consequences of relying on it to generate content for us. One question that arises is whether the use of AI tools like ChatGPT (a natural language processing model developed by OpenAI) is making us lazy. On the one hand, AI tools like ChatGPT can certainly make it easier for us to generate content and save time on tasks like writing and editing. On the other hand, there are also potential downsides to relying on AI to do this work for us, and it's important to consider both the pros and cons before making a decision about how to use these tools.

One of the main arguments in favor of using AI tools like ChatGPT is that they can save us a lot of time and effort. For example, if you're a writer or content creator, you may be able to use ChatGPT to quickly generate ideas for articles, or to help you brainstorm ideas for a project. Similarly, if you're an editor, you might be able to use ChatGPT to quickly identify errors in a document and suggest corrections, which can save you a lot of time and effort.

Another potential benefit of using AI tools like ChatGPT is that they can help us to produce higher quality content. By using natural language processing algorithms, ChatGPT can help to ensure that the content it generates is grammatically correct and flows smoothly, which can be especially useful for those who aren't native English speakers. Additionally, ChatGPT can help to eliminate errors and improve the overall quality of the content it generates, which can be especially useful for those who are working on tight deadlines or who have a lot of content to produce.

However, there are also potential downsides to relying on AI tools like ChatGPT. One concern is that relying on AI to generate content for us could make us more reliant on technology and less able to think for ourselves. If we rely too heavily on ChatGPT to do the work for us, we may lose the ability to come up with ideas and concepts on our own, which could have negative consequences for our creativity and problem-solving skills. Additionally, relying on AI to generate content for us could lead to a lack of diversity in the ideas and perspectives that are represented, as AI algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on.

Another concern is that using AI tools like ChatGPT could lead to job displacement. As AI technology continues to advance, it's possible that more and more tasks that were previously done by humans could be automated, potentially leading to job losses. This could be especially problematic in industries where writing and content creation are important, as the use of AI tools like ChatGPT could potentially lead to fewer job opportunities for writers and content creators.

Overall, it's clear that there are both pros and cons to using AI tools like ChatGPT to generate content for us. While these tools can certainly save us time and effort, and help us to produce higher quality content, it's important to consider the potential downsides as well. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use ChatGPT (or any other AI tool) will depend on your individual needs and circumstances, and it's important to carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.

Hopefully, those who know me can tell that the above isn't written in my style. The short article was written by ChatGPT, given the prompt to consider the broader issues from the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" written by Nicholas Carr (published in The Atlantic in July/August 2008), covering the pros and cons of reliance on AI to generate content for us. I think it is fairly clear that Carr's article is far superior in both style and content.

However, for quick brainstorming or creating a "strawman" draft to think about and develop further, hours can be saved by entering a prompt and having a conversation with the AI. "Expand on this" or "explain that concept" saving time on looking things up in various sources and writing a summary. I would put it on par with looking at Wikipedia as a first step to learning about a topic. It is not a primary source, but a good first step.

The quote from Robert A. Heinlein, in “Time Enough for Love,” captures the sentiment of the positive aspects of AI content generation: "Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." We have the potential to speed up drafting and outline a fairly well known set of concepts, principles, and techniques. That's the easy part done quickly. It is then up to us to use what (supposedly) sets us apart, and apply both critical and creative thinking to the known; to innovate and come up with something new.

Likewise, the AI can quickly compare and contrast two sets of concepts. This saves time when you want a quick overview or to check your thinking when you've recently come across ideas that seem to align. Recently, I'd read an article on goal setting, which outlined the principles developed by John Locke and Gary Latham. A few days later, I read a blog post about the concepts of the "flow state" as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. I immediately saw similarities, which I posted as a comment. After that, to check my thinking, I asked ChatGPT to list the principles and concepts on each of these things, then outline how they align:

"Under the heading 'Five Principles of Goal Setting', list the five principles of goal setting, developed by Locke and Latham. Under the heading, 'Flow State', list the key concepts of the flow state described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Under the heading 'How these align' outline, using bullet points, how the two concepts align."

What ChatGPT picked up aligned pretty well with what I'd noticed, but also had one point I hadn't previously considered. This is an area where quick research is more easily facilitated by an AI. In this example, it's not something I plan on taking further at this point in time, so it is sufficient (in the same way reading parts of a Wikipedia article is often sufficient to satisfy my curiosity). If I want to increase my knowledge of either of those concepts, I'll read all I can from the original authors, along with anything written by other authors that extends or critiques the original. Then I'll reflect on what I learnt and see what else I know that is similar. And on that thought, a follow on question to ChatGPT of "Are there other concepts that align with these principles?" resulted in brief explanations of growth-mindset, self-determination theory, and positive psychology. So, potential areas for me to explore in the future, if I choose to.

If we keep in mind that AI-generated content can be a great starting point, or is "good enough" in certain scenarios, it allows us to quickly do the easy, less important things, giving us more time to focus on innovation. We can improve ourselves by learning to ask more questions. Which questions will allows us to understand more about a topic? Which questions should I spend my time contemplating? Which questions should I leave to the AI? Socrates would be proud.

For now, my closing thoughts are that a positive way to work with AI is to become better at questioning, reasoning, and creativity. AI will be able to surface what it knows, but it might be some time before it can truly extend and enhance concepts and techniques in the ways that the human mind can. To stay relevant, humans will have to demonstrate that we can add value beyond reciting what we've had fed into our brain. As Darwin wrote, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.?It is the one that is most adaptable to change."

Note: The image I used for this article is a good example of my new "lazy" approach. I wanted to quickly find an image that in some way fits with the article, but I didn't want to spend time searching stock photos and checking copyright and permissions. My focus wasn't the image. My approach was to generate 16 images and choose the one I liked best. You can see other images and the text prompt on the NightCafe creation page.

Update: A quick check shows that Darwin didn't actually write the quote I used. However, I think the sentiment fits well with adaptability. Here is a link discussing the quote: The evolution of a misquotation