Delegating your creativity to a machine is an amputation.
@mcc this is true about all tools, physical and mental, but that's kind of an advanced version of the same conversation
i fully agree tho
@bob @whitequark @mcc there was an interesting paper about this relatively recently
Are tools truly incorporated as an extension of the body representation?: Assessing the evidence for tool embodiment
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-021-02032-6

The predominant view on human tool-use suggests that an action-oriented body representation, the body schema, is altered to fit the tool being wielded, a phenomenon termed tool embodiment. While observations of perceptual change after tool-use purport to support this hypothesis, several issues undermine their validity in this context, discussed at length in this critical review. The primary measures used as indicators of tool embodiment each face unique challenges to their construct validity. Further, the perceptual changes taken as indicating extension of the body representation only appear to account for a fraction of the toolās size in any given experiment, and do not demonstrate the covariance with tool length that the embodiment hypothesis would predict. The expression of tool embodiment also appears limited to a narrow range of tool-use tasks, as deviations from a simple reaching paradigm can mollify or eliminate embodiment effects altogether. The shortcomings identified here generate important avenues for future research. Until the source of the kinematic and perceptual effects that have substantiated tool embodiment is disambiguated, the hypothesis that the body representation changes to fit tools during tool-use should not be favored over other possibilities such as the formation of separable internal tool models, which seem to offer a more complete account of human tool-use behaviors. Indeed, studies of motor learning have observed analogous perceptual changes as aftereffects to adaptation despite the absence of handheld tool-use, offering a compelling alternative explanation, though more work is needed to confirm this possibility.
@bob @whitequark @mcc UNDERSTATED REPLY EMPOWERING this WHOLE THREAD
WOW. Get Equipped With METAL HAMMER Fediverse Thread!!
@whitequark @mcc This is true of any tool, yup. We make tools and tools make us. Thatās entire Marshall McLuhanās premise, the idea that we have social amputations, collective grieving over new forms of media.
Itās like those articles that claim ānew technology rewires the brainā. What *doesnāt* rewire the brain? Everything does.
Such a great observation
@mcc
Cars are informative in this discussion.
They bring a new way of thinking.
It's not just the data processing.
My old friend Pat asked about cyborging and social/psychological reactions, and I told him that he needed to look no further than the temporary cyborg of car+driver.
I got quite a lot of pushback :D - though not from him.
@mcc I had this half formed thought about what pisses me off about AI yesterday, which your point frames better.
I just donāt want computers to work like this. I donāt want weird black boxes, that are almost certainly highly unreliable, that are plumbed together on the fly by some āagentā.
I hate that, and I think itās shit.
I believe computers can be highly reliable, robust, transparent, and understandable.
I desperately want them to be like that, especially as an extension of myself.
The AI approach seems to be entirely conceding that aim and embrace āit doesnāt matter how it works if it usually gets the job doneā.
I donāt want that.