One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
In the adventure time cartoon...
one character shared the life advice "sucking at something is the first step toward being sort of good at something"
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana I was just talking to a younger coworker this week about the power in not being afraid to fuck up.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana Thank you, very well said!
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana I drill this into my children and junior co-workers.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
Fortunately, humanity produced lots of art, music, and literature before AI as to fill and fulfill many lifetimes.
-
Fortunately, humanity produced lots of art, music, and literature before AI as to fill and fulfill many lifetimes.
@JackMexa4 yes but the next generation also needs to be making bad art. Now.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana Well said!
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana Here's the thing. I don't have to be good at everything that needs to be done. I only have to be good at deciding what those things that need to be done actually are.
-
@JackMexa4 yes but the next generation also needs to be making bad art. Now.
Oh, yes, you are right.
I was sort of thinking aloud as a person who appreciates art made by people. -
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana German me squints and says 'You're still bad at it tho'
I don't know anyone who has the privilege and personality to be unabashedly bad at things. It's not like LLMs invented that.
What we should invent is doing things because doing them is worthwhile to us, not because we expect to one day become "good" at them. Yeah, some things we need professionals for, but most things are fine if they're a bit wonky.
-
@Lana Here's the thing. I don't have to be good at everything that needs to be done. I only have to be good at deciding what those things that need to be done actually are.
@AinsleyLowbeer You can't prompt your way to quality.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana
"It teaches you how to listen more effectively to music..."
Yes! This!
I played violin when I was in school. Not very good at it. I was the only senior still in the second violin section with the freshmen. But it was fun and interesting to hear from the inside how an orchestra piece came together. For the rest of my life, I listen to music as if hearing it from the inside, and enjoy it more fully as a result, even if I never played violin as an adult. -
@AinsleyLowbeer You can't prompt your way to quality.
@AinsleyLowbeer You think "I know good art when I see it" but you could never sit there and tell Picasso how to come up with the art he made, no matter how much art you had looked at previously. Because, in reality, you don't know shit about how good art is actually achieved if you've just looked at the end result.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana Also being allowed to say "I don't know"
-
@Lana Here's the thing. I don't have to be good at everything that needs to be done. I only have to be good at deciding what those things that need to be done actually are.
@AinsleyLowbeer hey you know what makes you good at that?
Being bad at that first.
-
@Lana German me squints and says 'You're still bad at it tho'
I don't know anyone who has the privilege and personality to be unabashedly bad at things. It's not like LLMs invented that.
What we should invent is doing things because doing them is worthwhile to us, not because we expect to one day become "good" at them. Yeah, some things we need professionals for, but most things are fine if they're a bit wonky.
@zombiecide "I don't know anyone who has the privilege and personality to be unabashedly bad at things."
This is literally false.
Again, EVERY person who makes art, music, dance, code, design, etc... ALL those people that you like, were unabashedly bad at it first. EVERY single one. The fact that you think that never happens is exactly what AI has stolen from you.
-
One thing that keeps me up at night is the progressive certainty that we as a society are slowly but surely losing our ability to be bad at things. We are ceding that skill to AI.
"You don't understand, without AI, I couldn't have drawn this/written this/designed this." says a person, certain that surely this, this argument right here is the nail in the coffin of the anti-AI argument. Utility: "Without this thing, I would have been bad at this task."
Yes. Correct. You would have been bad at it. And that's ok. Not only because it's just... Ok to be bad at things in general. But also because being bad at a thing is the first necessary step to learning how to do a thing.
Every musician you love has spent thousands of hours first being bad at being a musician. Every artist that brings you to tears has spent thousands of hours being bad at art. Every single designer with a master's degree in design has spent thousands upon thousands of hours designing things that are utter crap.
We learn how to do a thing by first being bad at it. And then noticing what skills we need to acquire to be better at it. And then honing those skills on a million failed attempts. And THEN we are finally good at doing it.
And being bad at things isn't just about learning how to do it yourself. It also teaches you how to listen more effectively to music. How to see art with the eyes of an artist. How to study a design for design flaws before it's even built. It teaches you good taste. How to perceive the humanity in the things all around you - things built by humans, for other humans.
No, the biggest problem with AI isn't that it makes bad art - although it most assuredly does also do that. It's that it robs human beings of the legitimacy of creating bad art ourselves.
How can anyone ever be expected to learn to do a thing if we can't ever be bad at it first?
@Lana @sundogplanets I did not realize this before. But this is very true. And it's not about AI. It's about society.
These days I see a lot of
"Why do you pick up a guitar and play when you are not half as good as the guy on this youtube video? Let's watch the video instead!" -
@Lana Also being allowed to say "I don't know"
@fullywoolly THIS.
