Serious question: If you willingly use generative "AI", do you believe you're immune to or sufficiently protected from de-skilling, cognitive decline, and what's commonly known as "AI psychosis"?
If yes: What makes you believe that? How are you special?
If no: Why do you still use it, given that you're aware of the risks to your cognition? Do you just accept it?
@aesthr I think nobody is immune, and I'd be more worried about someone who says they are.
tl;dr to why: I still use it because it's fun, I get things done, and the trade-off is worth it for me personally. Same reasons I eat meat or do similar things: I like it.
I use it for fun of it and because I run a company and have far more to do than there are hours in a day. I've always automated everything I can, and this is the most powerful automation I've ever had. It also lets me try things I would never have had time for otherwise.
I still do all my writing and music myself and probably won't ever automate either. Automating art (I count writing as art) just feels wrong. For UI design, I draw on inspiration but do the design myself. This is a contradiction, and I get that too.
I keep my skills sharp by spending my time where I'm needed most: selling, specs, architecture, leading, the big picture, and running the business. I hand off the hands-on coding to my employees anyway. And AI. I'm rustier at it than I used to be, and I accepted that even before AI.
I've been doing this for almost 30 years. That foundation doesn't disappear overnight. In fact, I use AI to learn new things. It's debatable, but for me, it often works better than reading the manual. I don't read every node_modules package either.
I'm a bit bummed that the discussion in the fediverse leans too far toward one extreme (AI: the worst), while LinkedIn leans too far toward the other (AI: the best).