I suspect it happened when we achieved a level of such constant stimulation (there is a pocket computer always on us with infinite effortless distraction) that we’re never bored and never engage the default mode network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orQKfIXMiA8
When you’re bored, your mind goes to places it wouldn’t otherwise go. Curiosity kicks in. Curiosity is a precursor to learning. Learning engages the brain and is fun. But it’s not fun all the time, some of it is challenging and frustrating (which is good, that’s the process that teaches you).
When you have the digital equivalent to infinite candy and the brain equivalent to a sweet tooth, it’s hard to resist the siren’s call. The consequence is the brain equivalent to a stomachache—depression and loss of meaning—but unfortunately it doesn’t hit you the same way so you don’t make the immediate connection to make yourself stop. When you think about it, it’s ridiculous from several angles: the candy is infinite, it’s never going to run out, so you don’t need to gorge! But then we justify ourselves as only a true addict would, that while the candy is infinite, the flavours are limited editions and always rotating, and what if I miss that really good one everyone is on?! Then you miss it, is the answer. No one will be talking about it in fifteen minutes anyway.
I don't know... I don't disagree, but I think this has been repeated so much that I believe everyone, at least everyone that is actively participating in HN discussions is aware of this.
So if we are aware of this and we consciously choose to keep engaging in dopaminergic activities, without having some time to be bored, I think it starts to become a choice. We can blame tech for starting this trend of stealing our attention, but once we become aware of this, we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it.
I’m not denying (at all) that unused skills languish. I take issue with AI being characterized as a magic eraser that mystically makes people forget what they have already learned. I’ve just done a study and concluded that dogs gets dumber when I throw a ball. What’s my evidence? They stop staring at me to chase it. The ball definitely made them forget who I was, so we shouldn’t allow dogs to have balls anymore.
Can AI make developers lazy in new ways? Of course! Why wouldn’t it? I don’t write things in ASM because I can be “lazy” and write 50x more useful instructions with a few lines of a modern language. I doubt I’d be able to write working ASM anymore without a serious refresher. Did newer languages erase my memory of ASM and make me “lazy”, or did my efforts evolve to make use of the newest technology regardless of “lost” skills?
I would argue that's a misuse of AI. If the point of an engineer is to know how things work behind a piece of software, then shipping code without an understanding how it all works is a failure.
You wouldn't trust an engineer a bridge that an engineer vibe-engineered would you?
So instead of focusing on AI as a productivity tool, focus on AI as a means of adding rigor and understanding to your workflow.
The linked Wikipedia page has plenty of evidence and studies and you can find plenty more with a basic web search. This is not something someone just made up; if you don’t know there are a multitude of studies on the harms of social media, you haven’t looked at all. Which is fine, it’s our prerogative to not search for information, but don’t turn around and say it doesn’t exist or is anecdotal.
> And yet, people are being more productive (actually productive) with AI.
You said, ironically without providing evidence, in the same paragraph that you complained about evidence not being provided for something else which has plenty of it. Furthermore, there are several studies suggesting AI may in fact decrease productivity, but I’m not going to link to those because the more important point is AI has nothing to do with the conversation. The original poster mentioned AI, but this branched thread is exclusively about the “liking to learn” part.
I didn't see anything in parent chain that implied this. Nor did I see it "characterized as a magic eraser"; I saw it framed as something that impedes learning, and that was tied back to constant simulation.
> Or at least, aware that this argument continues to be made with tenuous evidence and anecdotes
The arguments I read and the argument you seem to be replying to seem to be different things.
And this isn't an excuse btw, but if you want to understand why, this is a good place to start.
...or a subtle addiction that also creates the impression of productivity/progress/social interaction...
If so, then all applicable studies on addiction should be taken into consideration as well, but their context probably doesn't even begin to cover the size of the issue here.
I promise you that is incorrect. People who actively participate on HN are a group more diverse than is often given credit, and I strongly believe there is nothing “everyone knows” here.
Just nine days ago, someone on HN was vaguely aware of the idea but did not know it’s called the default mode network. How many more aren’t even aware of the idea?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47926043
Not knowing the name means you’re not aware of all the details, intricacies, studies and ideas pertaining to it.
Finally, even if everyone knew about it that would still not be reason to not talk about it. Talking and doing something repeatedly is how you create habits and change behaviour. Same way you should still call out when someone does something bad even if “everyone knows they do it”.
> I think it starts to become a choice. (…) we can only blame ourselves for perpetuating it.
That is called blaming the victim. There are multiple billion dollar corporations and industries actively working to get you addicted, bombarding you from every side. It’s not a simple choice of “I’m not going to engage”, rather you have to actively disengage from what’s thrown in your face all the time. It’s exhausting. You’re falling into their trap and repeating the words they want you to. It’s like a supermarket which offers 99% junk and only a tiny section of always the same selection for healthy eating (not a hypothetical, I have several like that nearby) then blaming buyers for not eating more healthily. It’s not a fair choice if you’re constantly pushing and finding ways to trick people to in one specific direction.
And again, not everyone is aware of what is happening. Most people aren’t. And even those who are (which, again, is not even everyone on HN) aren’t immune.
However, for those who know, I don't think this is blaming the victim. I think victim blaming is a form of debate simplification in this case, just like "this is life" or "shit happens".
Sure there are billions of dollars invested in attention stealing mechanisms, just as there are billions of dollars invested in gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry. However, while we need as a society need to discuss mechanisms to control and maybe prohibit these practices, a functional adult human beings should be expected to create safeguards to protect themselves against this. Maybe the phrasing wasn't the best, but my point stands. Once you are aware of things that aren't good for you, you can really only count on yourself to do something about it.
Those are great examples because they show that leaving it all up to the individual is not enough. All of those are regulated by the state because we as a society recognised they were doing their damnest to screw everyone else for their own gain. Social media is going the same route, with several countries already introducing bills to prohibit them to minors.
There is another discussion to be had if we’re going about it the right way (I certainly do not support privacy invasion in the form of age checks), but it does show we’re recognising its harm.
And I love how I can go from a curious brainfart "hmm, could I do a movie catalogue app that uses a web page + phone camera + OpenAI API to identify physical DVDs by front/back cover instead of trying to find a reliable barcode database" to it actually working in maybe two hours of real time. Just paused the movie I was watching, typed the idea to Claude Code on mobile and kept watching.
After the movie went back to my computer, merged the changes and tested whether it worked. It mostly did. The UI/UX was horrible etc, but the basic idea was functional. It even got some of the movie extras correctly.
I didn't try to turn it into a product, didn't buy a domain for it or advertise it on Reddit or Show HN. But now I know it CAN be done. Curiosity sated.
