Ask HN: To what extend have you stopped or limited your use of AI?

I stopped using AI for code, everything it gives me requires manual checking and editing to work but now I have the overhead of not having the deep understanding I would otherwise have had if I figured out things myself from the start. I also stopped using AI as a sort of replacement for quick google searches in general, but I didn't go back to using google because now I feel those results are too shallow. I been trying to figure things out from primary sources as much as possible and thinking for myself since it seems to me the value going forward is having depth and breadth over the competition that you only get by doing things the very old and slow way.

I’m thinking about limiting the extent I use it for coding. Just to stay sharp. Need to exercise my brain more.

I personally do not use LLMs (knowingly) at all, largely for environmental reasons. The improvements are, to me, not worth the attrocious energy use. I will happily pay 20% or whatever more in both money and time.

I also have no interest in technology that impedes my skill development. I do not want to use anything that makes me a worse writer over time.

YMMV, I am answering the OP not evangelizing. Counter arguments will be ignored.

I haven't limited my AI use. In fact, it has increased. It still feels experimental, and I often use it even when it does not save time, simply to avoid effortful thinking. That concerns me.

I believe we are heading toward a world where AI offers easy mental shortcuts for nearly everything, similar to how cheap carbs became widespread in our diets. I do not yet know how I will deal with that. For now, I am just a kid in a candy store, enjoying the novelty.

What did not work?

Many things appear to work at first, right. Most of the time, using AI seems great, until one spends a lot of time working out lots of important details. A bunch of prompts later...

Yeah.

Sometimes it is nice to begin with something, even if it is wrong. AI is great for that.

Funny how often it is we can write in response to errors! Out it comes! Like that fire hose trope.

In that vein:

Proposal templates, and other basic create tasks can start with a boost.

Oh, a surprising one was distilling complex ideas into simple, direct language!

And for code, I like getting a fragment, function, whatever all populated, ready for me to just start working with.

Bonus for languages I want to learn more about, or just learn. There are traps here. You have to run it with that in mind.

Trust, but verify.

What did not work:

Really counting on the things. And like most everyone I suppose, I will easily say I know better. Really, I do, but... [Insert in here.]

Filtering of various kinds.

I may add to this later.

I haven’t stopped using AI, but I use it less than I did a few months ago. Now I mostly turn to it when I’m stuck or need inspiration. Using it less actually made me more efficient.

Using gen AI for anything artistic (illustrations, music, video, creative writing) is a dead end. The results are soulless and bland. People notice immediately.

Code completions are fine. Driving code through chat is a complete waste of time (never saves time for me; always ends up taking longer). Agentic coding (where the LLM works autonomously for half an hour) still holds some promise, but my employer isn't ready for that.

Research/queries only for very low stakes/established things (e.g., how do I achieve X in git).

I don't use AI at all, primarily because I believe its harmful and I am quite mindful of things.

I've observed colleagues who have used it extensively, I've often been a late adopter for things that carry unspecified risk; and AI was already on par with Pandora's box in my estimation when the weights were first released; I am usually perceptually pretty far ahead of the curve naturally (and accurately so).

Objectively, I've found these colleagues attitude, mental alacrity, work product, and abstract reasoning skills have degraded significantly in reference to their prior work pre-AI. They tried harder, got more actual work done, and were able to converse easily and quickly before. Now its, let me get back to you; and you get emails which have been quite clearly put through an LLM, with no real reasoning happening.

What is worse, is its happened in ways they largely do not notice, and when objective observations are pointed out, they don't take kindly to the feedback despite it not being an issue with them, but with their AI use, and the perceptual blindspots it takes advantage of. Many seem to be adopting destructive behaviors common to junkies, who have addiction problems.

I think given sufficient time, this trend will be recognized; but not before it causes significant adverse effects.

I did not stop.

I do limit my use today, compared to a few months ago.

Most of that is having successfully mapped out use cases that make sense, I find myself doing less seeking. Where it is a net gain, go; otherwise, why bother?

Haven't tried it yet. I hear it's having some impact!

Extent. The word you're looking for is extent. Sorry. Word nerd.

Not at all. I'm an attorney. Fast law is bad law. If you're using LLMs (stop calling it AI ffs -- only morons parrot the marketing hype) to do law, you're just asking toget slapped sooner or later. Like the moron that is My Pillow Mike Lindell's lawyer. See here: https://ia801706.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.cod.21...

"I've been using it continuously without restrictions, trying to find ways to make AI smarter because it really helps improve efficiency!"