[HN Gopher] Thinking Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI Is Resha...
___________________________________________________________________
Thinking Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI Is Reshaping Human
Reasoning
Author : Anon84
Score : 77 points
Date : 2026-03-21 15:30 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (papers.ssrn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (papers.ssrn.com)
| gmuslera wrote:
| The main problem with "System 3" is that it have its own kind of
| "cognitive biases", like System 1, but those new cognitive biases
| are designed by marketing, politics, culture and whatever censor
| or makes visible the original training. Even if the process, the
| processing and whatever else around was perfect (that is not,
| i.e. hallucinations)
|
| But, we still have the System 1, and survived and reached this
| stage because of it, because even a bad guess is better than the
| slowness of doing things right. It have its problems, but
| sometimes you must reach a compromise.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I suppose the publishing process has always existed as system
| 3. It's just that now we have a new way to read and write with
| an abstract "rest of the world".
| kikkupico wrote:
| Contrary to the general opinion, I feel that AI has IMPROVED my
| cognitive skills. I find myself discovering solutions to problems
| I've always struggled with (without asking AI about it, of
| course). I also find myself becoming much better at thinking on
| my feet during regular conversations. I believe I'm spending more
| time deep thinking than ever before because I can leave the
| boring cognitive stuff to AI, and that's giving my mind tougher
| workouts and making it stronger; but I could be completely wrong.
| siva7 wrote:
| It's so fascinating, i feel the same but at the same i feel
| like most people get dumber than before ai (and most seem to
| struggle adapting ai)
| mayukh wrote:
| Because most people either don't know how to use it (multiple
| reasons, that ai itself can help them solve) or don't have
| the right mindset going into it (deeper work needed)
| eslaught wrote:
| Without an empirical methodology it's hard to know how true
| this is. There are known and well-documented human biases
| (e.g., placebo effect) that could easily be involved here. And
| besides that, there's a convincing (but often overlooked on HN)
| argument to be made that modern LLMs are optimized in the same
| manner as other attention economy technologies. That is to say,
| they're addictive in the same general way that the
| YouTube/TikTok/Facebook/etc. feed algorithms are. They may be
| useful, but they also manipulate your attention, and it's
| difficult to disentangle those when the person evaluating the
| claims is the same person (potentially) being manipulated.
|
| I'd love to see an empirical study that actually dives into
| this and attempts to show one way or another how true it is.
| Otherwise it's just all anecdotes.
| pipes wrote:
| I don't understand how the placebo effect is a human bias. Is
| it?
| wongarsu wrote:
| At least in some instances you could frame it that way: You
| believe that doctors and medicine are effective at treating
| disease, so when you are sick and a doctor gives you a
| bottle of sugar pills and you take them, you now interpret
| your state through the lens that you should feel better. A
| bias on how you perceive your condition
|
| That's not all that the placebo effect is. But it's
| probably the aspect that best fits the framing as bias
| literalAardvark wrote:
| It's much more than a bias.
|
| You actually get better through placebo, as long as
| there's a pathway to it that is available to your body.
|
| It's a really weird effect.
|
| The fight isn't against triggering placebo, it's against
| letting it muddle study results.
| ip26 wrote:
| I keep asking it questions, and as I dialogue about the
| problem, I walk right into the conclusion myself, classic
| rubber duck. Or occasionally it will say something back, and
| it's like "of course! That's exactly what I've been circling
| without realizing it!"
|
| This mostly happens with things I've already had long cognitive
| loops on myself, and I'm feeling stuck for some reason. The
| conversation with the model is usually multiple iterations of
| explaining to the model what I'm working through.
| mayukh wrote:
| You are not wrong. AI is an amplifier. You chose to amplify
| something in particular and it works for you. That's good
| enough. (Give this as a prompt to your ai as I sense self-doubt
| here)
| K0balt wrote:
| This is it for me. I am doing much better high level work since
| I don't have to spend much time on lower level work. I have
| time to think and explore reframe and reanalyse
| himata4113 wrote:
| Same here, I observe what AI does as a spectator and it leads
| me to find problems and solutions way faster than I would have
| done so alone and much faster than AI could do it (if it could
| solve the problem at all).
|
| This in turn has given me the ability to "double" think. I am
| conciously thinking while I have another part of my brain also
| thinking about it on a bigger scope that I could conciously
| grasp.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| When humans have an easy way to do something that is almost as
| good, we choose that easy way. Call it laziness, energy
| conservation, coddling, etc. The hard thing then becomes hard to
| do even when the easy thing isn't available, because the
| cognitive muscle and the discipline atrophy.
|
| Like kids who are never taught to do things for themselves.
| tac19 wrote:
| Do you refuse to use a calculator or spreadsheet, because doing
| long hand division helps you exercise your mental muscle? Do
| you refuse to use a database, because it will make your memory
| weaker? Or, do you refuse to use a car, because it makes you
| less able to walk when the car is unavailable? No. Because the
| car empowers you to do something that, at the very least, takes
| a lot longer on foot.
|
| People have worried with every single new technology that it
| will enfeeble the masses, rather than empower them, and yet in
| the end, we usually find ourselves better off.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Do you refuse to use a calculator or spreadsheet, because
| doing long hand division helps you exercise your mental
| muscle
|
| Yeah when I was learning in school we weren't allowed
| electronics for division, and I think I absolutely would be
| dumber if I had never done that
|
| > People have worried with every single new technology that
| it will enfeeble the masses, rather than empower them, and
| yet in the end, we usually find ourselves better off.
|
| If you're posting this from America, you're living in a
| society that is fatter than ever thanks to cars. So there's
| surely some nuance here, not every technology upgrade is
| strictly better with no downsides
| wongarsu wrote:
| The car seems like a great example of a technology with a lot
| of problematic side effects. Places that had a more measured
| adoption ended up a lot better than those that replaced all
| public transit with cars and routinely demolished
| neighborhoods to make space for bigger highways
|
| Cars are an essential part of modern life, but the sweetspot
| for car adoption isn't on either of the extremes
| mayukh wrote:
| Tragedy of the commons perhaps ? Good for the individual,
| bad for society and finding solutions that can balance both
| wongarsu wrote:
| I'd call it bad on both levels. The costs imposed by car
| infrastructure are a tragedy of the commons. But even if
| you were the only person with a modern car you'd still be
| hit with the social effects of traveling in the isolation
| of your private metal box and the health effects of
| walking or biking less
|
| On the other hand there are also big positives on both
| the societal and individual level. That's where the
| balance comes in. You want some individual travel and
| part of your logistics to run on cars, but not all of it.
| And probably a lot less of it than what most people in
| the 60s to 90s thought
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| For about 8y I biked for every possible local trip, usually
| daily. I wanted to reduce local pollution and get the
| exercise. It was rough in the wind and cold. I'd do it again
| if I could.
|
| Sometimes I take breaks from the calculator and even review
| math videos because it's embarrassing when I can't help my
| kid with their homework.
|
| Taking care in how and when we use AI seems very sensible.
| Just like we take care how often and how much refined sugar
| we eat, or how many hours we spend sedentary.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| > Across studies, participants with higher trust in AI and lower
| need for cognition and fluid intelligence showed greater
| surrender to System 3
|
| So the smart get smarter and the dumb get dumber?
|
| Well, not exactly, but at least for now with AI "highly jagged",
| and unreliable, it pays to know enough to NOT trust it, and
| indeed be mentally capable enough that you don't need to
| surrender to it, and can spot the failures.
|
| I think the potential problems come later, when AI is more
| capable/reliable, and even the intelligentsia perhaps stop
| questioning it's output, and stop exercising/developing their own
| reasoning skills. Maybe AI accelerates us towards some version of
| "Idiocracy" where human intelligence is even less relevant to
| evolutionary success (i.e. having/supporting lots of kids) than
| it is today, and gets bred out of the human species? Maybe this
| is the inevitable trajectory: species gets smarter when they
| develop language and tool creation, then peak, and get dumber
| after having created tools that do the thinking for them?
|
| Pre-AI, a long time ago, I used to think/joke we might go in the
| other direction - evolve into a pulsating brain, eyes, genitalia
| and vestigial limbs, as mental work took over from physical, but
| maybe I got that reversed!
| RodgerTheGreat wrote:
| I think everyone who believes that they can personally resist
| the detrimental psychological effects of exposure to LLMs by
| "remaining aware" or "being careful", because they have
| cultivated an understanding of how language models work, is
| falling into precisely the same fallacy as people who think
| they can't be conned or that marketing doesn't work on them.
|
| Don't kid yourself. If you use this junk, it's making you
| dumber and damaging your critical thinking skills, full-stop.
| This is delegation of core competency. You may _feel_ smarter,
| or that you 're learning faster, of that you're more
| productive, but to people who aren't addicted to LLMs it sounds
| exactly like gamblers insisting they have a foolproof system
| for slots, or alcoholics insisting that a few beers make them a
| better driver. Nobody outside the bubble is impressed with the
| results.
| thesumofall wrote:
| I fully agree that it's close to impossible to not eventually
| fall into the trap of overrelying on them. However, it's also
| true that I was able to do things with them that I would
| never have done otherwise for a lack of time or skill (all
| sorts of small personal apps, tools, and scripts for my
| hobbies). Maybe it's a bit similar to only reading the
| comment section in a newspaper instead of the news? They will
| introduce you to new perspectives but if you stop reading the
| underlying news you'll harm your own critical thinking? So
| it's maybe a bit more grey than black & white?
| andai wrote:
| Damn. I came up with a hypothetical "System 3" last year! I
| didn't find AI very helpful in that regard though.
|
| Current status: partially solved.
|
| Problem: System 2 is supposed to be rational, but I found this to
| be far from the case. Massive unnecessary suffering.
|
| Solution (WIP): Ask: What is the goal? What are my assumptions?
| Is there anything I am missing?
|
| --
|
| So, I repeatedly found myself getting into lots of trouble due to
| unquestioned assumptions. System 2 is supposed to be rational,
| but I found this to be far from the case.
|
| So I tried inventing an "actually rational system" that I could
| "operate manually", or with a little help. I called it System 3,
| a system where you use a Thinking Tool to help you think more
| effectively.
|
| Initial attempt was a "rational LLM prompt", but these mostly
| devolve into unhelpful nitpicking. (Maybe it's solvable, but I
| didn't get very far.)
|
| Then I realized, wouldn't you get better results with a bunch of
| questions on pen and paper? Guided writing exercises?
|
| So here are my attempts so far:
|
| reflect.py - https://gist.github.com/a-n-d-
| a-i/d54bc03b0ceeb06b4cd61ed173...
|
| unstuck.py - https://gist.github.com/a-n-d-
| a-i/d54bc03b0ceeb06b4cd61ed173...
|
| --
|
| I'm not sure what's a good way to get yourself "out of a rut" in
| terms of thinking about a problem. It seems like the longer
| you've thought about it, the less likely you are to explore
| beyond the confines of the "known" (i.e. your probably
| dodgy/incomplete assumptions).
|
| I haven't solved System 3 yet, but a few months later found
| myself in an even more harrowing situation which could have been
| avoided if I had a System 3.
|
| The solution turned out to be trivial, but I missed it for
| weeks... In this case, I had incorrectly _named_ the project, and
| thus doomed it to limbo. Turns out naming things is just as
| important in real life as it is in programming!
|
| So I joked "if being pedantic didn't solve the problem, you
| weren't being pedantic enough." But it's not a joke! It's about
| clear thinking. (The negative aspect of pedantry is inappropriate
| communication. But the positive aspect is "seeing the situation
| clearly", which is obviously the part you want to keep!)
| nasretdinov wrote:
| I mean... I don't really check calculations made by a computer
| (e.g. by my own programs) all that often either and I think I'm
| completely fine :). But I guess the difference is that we kind of
| know how computers work and that they're generally super accurate
| and make mistakes incredibly rarely. The "AI" (although I
| disagree with "I" part) is wrong incredibly often, and I don't
| think people appreciate that the difference to the "traditional"
| approach isn't just significant, it's astronomical: LLMs make
| things up at least 5% of the time, whereas CPUs male mistakes
| maybe (10^-12)% of time or less. It's 12 orders of magnitude or
| so.
| thr0waway001 wrote:
| AI reminds of listening to any person who seems like an
| intellectual authority on multiple subjects on YouTube and is not
| afraid to wax confidently on any topic. They seem very
| intelligent and knowledgable until they actually talk about
| something you know.
|
| In other words, I try to learn from it whenever it does something
| I can't do but when it does something I can do or something I'm
| really good at it I find myself wanting to correct it cause it
| doesn't do it that well.
|
| It just seems like a really quick thinking and fast executing
| but, ultimately, mid skilled / novice person.
| ahd94 wrote:
| And it starts showing impatience when its about to run out of
| context, more like someone who wants to get out of the office
| exactly at 5.
| kykat wrote:
| Not just when running out of context, it's always. Once it
| fixates on a goal, all hell breaks loose and there's nothing
| that it won't be sacrificed to get there. At least that's my
| experience with Claude Code, I am pressing the figurative
| breaks all the time.
| bitwize wrote:
| Gell-Mann amnesia. The things it tells you about things you
| don't know are things that would make a knowledgeable person go
| "dude, wtf? That's totally wrong."
| johnnymonster wrote:
| blocking access to a site because you don't enable javascript is
| diabolical
| bjourne wrote:
| "Time pressure (Study 2) and per-item incentives and feedback
| (Study 3) shifted baseline performance but did not eliminate this
| pattern: when accurate, AI buffered time-pressure costs and
| amplified incentive gains; when faulty, it consistently reduced
| accuracy regardless of situational moderators."
|
| I LOLed.
| danilor wrote:
| I couldn't figure if this was published to a journal? Or is it
| only published to a pre-print server?
| deevelton wrote:
| Have been curious what it could look like (and whether it might
| be an interesting new type of "post" people make) if readers
| could see the human prompts and pivots and steering of the LLM
| inline within the final polished AI output.
| woopsn wrote:
| In the technophile's future people aren't just getting dumber,
| not wanting to think or forgetting how - they aren't _allowed_ to
| think. Maybe about anything. It 's too big liability, costs too
| much to support, moreover detracts from the product. Like Sam A
| telling those Indian students they aren't worth the energy and
| water. That's what we're dealing with.
| vicchenai wrote:
| I've noticed this in my own work with financial data. I used to
| manually sanity-check numbers from SEC filings and catch weird
| stuff all the time. Started leaning on LLMs to parse them faster
| and realized after a few weeks I was just... accepting whatever
| came back without thinking about it. Had to consciously force
| myself to go back to spot-checking.
|
| The "System 3" framing is interesting but I think what's really
| happening is more like cognitive autopilot. We're not gaining a
| new reasoning system, we're just offloading the old ones and not
| noticing.
| pink_eye wrote:
| Can it design and implement a plutonium electric fuel cell with a
| 24,000 year half life? We have yet to witness it. Can it automate
| Farming and Agriculture? These are the real questions. #Born-
| Crusty
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-21 23:00 UTC)