Comment by orev
8 hours ago
It’s like weightlifting: sure you can use a forklift to do it, but if the goal is to build up your own strength, using the forklift isn’t going to get you there.
This is the ultimate problem with AI in academia. We all inherently know that “no pain no gain” is true for physical tasks, but the same is true for learning. Struggling through the new concepts is essentially the point of it, not just the end result.
Of course this becomes a different thing outside of learning, where delivering results is more important in a workplace context. But even then you still need someone who does the high level thinking.
I think this is a pretty solid analogy but I look at the metaphor this way - people used to get strong naturally because they had to do physical labor. Because we invented things like the forklift we had to invent things like weightlifting to get strong instead. You can still get strong, you just need to be more deliberate about it. It doesn't mean shouldn't also use a forklift, which is its own distinct skill you also need to learn.
It's not a perfect analogy though because in this case it's more like automated driving - you should still learn to drive because the autodriver isn't perfect and you need to be ready to take the wheel, but that means deliberate, separate practice at learning to drive.
> people used to get strong naturally because they had to do physical labor
I think that's a bit of a myth. The Greeks and Romans had weightlifting and boxing gyms, but no forklifts. Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators with the wealth and free time to lift weights and box and wrestle. One of the things that we know about the famous philosopher Plato was that Plato was essentially a nickname from wrestling (meaning "Broad") as a first career (somewhat like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, which adds a fun twist to reading Socratic Dialogs or thinking about relationships as "platonic").
Arguably the "meritocratic ideal" of the Gladiator arena was that even "blue collar" Romans could compete and maybe survive. But even the stories that survive of that, few did.
There may be a lesson in that myth, too, that the people that succeed in some sports often aren't the people doing physical labor because they must do physical labor (for a job), they are the ones intentionally practicing it in the ways to do well in sports.
I can’t attest to the entire past, but my ancestors on both sides were farmers or construction workers. They were fit. Heck, my dad has a beer gut at 65 but still has arm muscles that’ll put me to shame — someone lifting weights once a week. I’ve had to do construction for a summer and everyone there was in good shape.
They don’t go to the gym, they don’t have the energy; the job shapes you. More or less the same for the farmers in the family.
Perhaps this was less so in the industrial era because of poor nutrition (source: Bill Bryson, hopefully well researched). Hunter gatherer cultures that we still study today have tremendous fitness (Daniel Lieberman).
> I think that's a bit of a myth.
Why do you think that? It's definitely true. You can observe it today if you want to visit a country where peasants are still common.
From Bret Devereaux's recent series on Greek hoplites:
> Now traditionally, the zeugitai were regarded as the ‘hoplite class’ and that is sometimes supposed to be the source of their name
> but what van Wees is working out is that although the zeugitai are supposed to be the core of the citizen polity (the thetes have limited political participation) there simply cannot be that many of them because the minimum farm necessary to produce 200 medimnoi of grain is going to be around 7.5 ha or roughly 18 acres which is – by peasant standards – an enormous farm, well into ‘rich peasant’ territory.
> Of course with such large farms there can’t be all that many zeugitai and indeed there don’t seem to have been. In van Wees’ model, the zeugitai-and-up classes never supply even half of the number of hoplites we see Athens deploy
> Instead, under most conditions the majority of hoplites are thetes, pulled from the wealthiest stratum of that class (van Wees figures these fellows probably have farms in the range of ~3 ha or so, so c. 7.5 acres). Those thetes make up the majority of hoplites on the field but do not enjoy the political privileges of the ‘hoplite class.’
> And pushing against the ‘polis-of-rentier-elites’ model, we often also find Greek sources remarking that these fellows, “wiry and sunburnt” (Plato Republic 556cd, trans. van Wees), make the best soldiers because they’re more physically fit and more inured to hardship – because unlike the wealthy hoplites they actually have to work.
( https://acoup.blog/2026/01/09/collections-hoplite-wars-part-... )
---
> Many of the most renowned Romans in the original form of the Olympics and in Boxing were Roman Senators
In the original form of the Olympics, a Roman senator would have been ineligible to compete, since the Olympics was open only to Greeks.
Weightlifting and weight training was invented long before forklifts. Even levers were not properly understood back then.
My favorite historic example of typical modern hypertrophy-specific training is the training of Milo of Croton [1]. By legend, his father gifted him with the calf and asked daily "what is your calf, how does it do? bring it here to look at him" which Milo did. As calf's weight grew, so did Milo's strength.
This is application of external resistance (calf) and progressive overload (growing calf) principles at work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_of_Croton
Milo lived before Archimedes.
Dad needs to respect that we need rest days.
3 replies →
> what is your calf, how does it do?
... it's a calf, dad, just like yesterday
I looked up the weight of cows from that era. Only about 400 lbs. Seems doable.
Milo might have had slaves, the forklifts of his time....
>if the goal is to build up your own strength I think you missed this line. If the goal is just to move weights or lift the most - forklift away. If you want to learn to use a forklift, drive on and best of luck. But if you're trying to get stronger the forklift will not help that goal.
Like many educational tests the outcome is not the point - doing the work to get there is. If you're asked to code fizz buzz it's not because the teacher needs you to solve fizz buzz for them, it's because you will learn things while you make it. Ai, copying stack overflow, using someone's code from last year, it all solves the problem while missing the purpose of the exercise. You're not learning - and presumably that is your goal.
Thanks for the analogy. But I think students may think to themselves:"Why do I need to be stronger if I can use a forklift?"
I like this analogy along with the idea that "it's not an autonomous robot, it's a mech suit."
Here's the thing -- I don't care about "getting stronger." I want to make things, and now I can make bigger things WAY faster because I have a mech suit.
edit: and to stretch the analogy, I don't believe much is lost "intellectually" by my use of a mech suit, as long as I observe carefully. Me doing things by hand is probably overrated.
The point of going to school is to learn all the details of what goes into making things, so when you actually make a thing, you understand how it’s supposed to come together, including important details like correct design that can support the goal, etc. That’s the “getting stronger” part that you can’t skip if you expect to be successful. Only after you’ve done the work and understand the details can you be successful using the power tools to make things.
The point of school for me was to get a degree. 99% of the time at school was useless. The internet was a much better learning resources. Even more so now that AI exists.
2 replies →
> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? — The Elements of Programming Style, 2nd edition, chapter 2
If you weren't even "clever enough" to write the program yourself (or, more precisely, if you never cultivated a sufficiently deep knowledge of the tools & domain you were working with), how do you expect to fix it when things go wrong? Chatbots can do a lot, but they're ultimately just bots, and they get stuck & give up in ways that professionals cannot afford to. You do still need to develop domain knowledge and "get stronger" to keep pace with your product.
Big codebases decay and become difficult to work with very easily. In the hands-off vibe-coded projects I've seen, that rate of decay was extremely accelerated. I think it will prove easy for people to get over their skis with coding agents in the long run.
OK, it’s a mech suit. The question under discussion is, do you need to learn to walk first, before you climb into it? My life experience has shown me you can’t learn things by “observing”, only by doing.
If all I know is the mech suit, I’ll struggle with tasks that I can’t use it for. Maybe even get stuck completely. Now it’s a skill issue because I never got my 10k hours in and I don’t even know what to observe or how to explain the outcome I want.
In true HN fashion of trading analogies, it’s like starting out full powered in a game and then having it all taken away after the tutorial. You get full powered again at the end but not after being challenged along the way.
This makes the mech suit attractive to newcomers and non-programmers, but only because they see product in massively simplified terms. Because they don’t know what they don’t know.
This analogy works pretty well. Too much time doing everything in it and your muscles will atrophy. Some edge cases will be better if you jump out and use your hands.
There's also plenty of mech tales where the mech pilots need to spend as much time out of the suits making sure their muscles (and/or mental health) are in good strength precisely because the mechs are a "force multiplier" and are only as strong as their pilot. That's a somewhat common thread in such worlds.
3 replies →
I like the electric bike as a metaphor. You can go further faster, but you quickly find yourself miles from home and out of juice, and you ain't in shape enough to get that heavy bugger back.
2 replies →
The mech suit works well until you need to maintain stateful systems. I've found that while initial output is faster, the AI tends to introduce subtle concurrency bugs between Redis and Postgres that are a nightmare to debug later. You get the speed up front but end up paying for it with a fragile architecture.
> "it's not an autonomous robot, it's a mech suit."
Or "An [electric] bicycle for the mind." Steve Jobs/simonw
No, it's not a mech suit. A mech suit doesn't fire its canister rifle at friendly units and then say "You're absolutely right! I should have done an IFF before attacking that unit." (And if it did the engineer responsible should be drawn and quartered.) Mech-suit programming AI would look like something that reads your brainwaves and transduces them into text, letting you think your code into the machine. I'd totally use that if I had it.
> I want to make things
You need to be strong to do so. Things of any quality or value at least.
Misusing a forklift might injure the driver and a few others; but it is unlikely to bring down an entire electric grid, expose millions to fraud and theft, put innocent people in prison, or jeopardize the institutions of government.
There is more than one kind of leverage at play here.
> Misusing a forklift might injure the driver and a few others; but it is unlikely to bring down an entire electric grid
That's the job of the backhoe.
(this is a joke about how diggers have caused quite a lot of local internet outages by hitting cables, sometimes supposedly "redundant" cables that were routed in the same conduit. Hitting power infrastructure is rare but does happen)
At my last job we had the power taken out by a backhoe. It was loaded onto a trailer and either the operator forgot to lower the bucket, or the driver drove away before he had time to lower it.
Regardless of whose fault it was, the end result was the bucket snagged the power lines going into the datacentre and caused an outage.
> but it is unlikely to bring down an entire electric grid
Unless you happen to drive a forklift in a power plant.
> expose millions to fraud and theft
You can if you drive forklift in a bank.
> put innocent people in prison
You can use forklift to put several innocent people in prison with one trip, they have pretty high capacity.
> jeopardize the institutions of government.
It's pretty easy with a forklift, just try driving through main gate.
> There is more than one kind of leverage at play here.
Forklifts typically have several axes of travel.
The level of pettiness in this comment is through the roof. I love it.
I do appreciate the visual of driving a forklift into the gym.
The activity would train something, but it sure wouldn't be your ability to lift.
A version of this does happen with regard to fitness.
There are enthusiasts who will spend an absolute fortune to get a bike that is few grams lighter and then use it to ride up hills for the exercise.
Presumably a much cheaper bike would mean you could use a smaller hill for the same effect.
From an exercise standpoint, sure, but with sports there is more to it than just maximizing exercise.
If you practice judo you're definitely exercising but the goal is defeating your opponent. When biking or running you're definitely exercising but the goal is going faster or further.
From an an exercise optimization perspective you should be sitting on a spinner with a customized profile, or maybe do some entirely different motion.
If sitting on a carbon fiber bike, shaving off half a second off your multi-hour time, is what brings you joy and motivation then I say screw it to further justification. You do you. Just be mindful of others, as the path you ride isn't your property.
I feel like the aviation pilot angst captured by "automation dependency" and the fears around skills loss is another great analogy. [0]
[0] https://eazypilot.com/blog/automation-dependency-blessing-or...
How seriously do you mean the analogy?
I think forklifts probably carry more weight over longer distances than people do (though I could be wrong, 8 billion humans carrying small weights might add up).
Certainly forklifts have more weight * distance when you restrict to objects that are over 100 pounds, and that seems like a good decision.
I feel we are on the cusp of a new era... Civil Engineering bridge analogies about to be replaced by forklift analogies.
I think it's a good analogy. A forklift is a useful tool and objectively better than humans for some tasks, but if you've never developed your muscles because you use the forklift every time you go to the gym, then when you need to carry a couch up the stairs you'll find that you can't do it and the forklift can't either.
So the idea is that you should learn to do things by hand first, and then use the powerful tools once you're knowledgeable enough to know when they make sense. If you start out with the powerful tools, then you'll never learn enough to take over when they fail.
A forklift can do things no human can. I've used a forklift for things that no group of humans could - you can't physically get enough humans around that size object to lift it. (of course levers would change this)
Yeah, it's a great analogy. Pushing it even further: a forklift is superhuman, but only in specific environments that are designed for it. As soon as you're off of pavement a forklift can't do much. As soon as an object doesn't have somewhere to stick the forks you need to get a bunch of other equipment to get the forklift to lift it.
You're making the analogy work: because the point of weightlifting as a sport or exercise is to not to actually move the weights, but condition your body such that it can move the weights.
Indeed, usually after doing weightlifting, you return the weights to the place where you originally took them from, so I suppose that means you did no work at in the first place..
That's true of exercise in general. It's bullshit make-work we do to stay fit, because we've decoupled individual survival from hard physical labor, so it doesn't happen "by itself" anymore. A blessing and a curse.
The real challenge will be that people almost always pick the easier path.
We have a decent sized piece of land and raise some animals. People think we're crazy for not having a tractor, but at the end of the day I would rather do it the hard way and stay in shape while also keeping a bit of a cap on how much I can change or tear up around here.
I've been showing my students this video of a robot lifting weights to illustrate why they shouldn't use AI to do their homework. It's obvious to them the robot lifting weights won't make them stronger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7WBGMo3Iw
I like the weightlifting parable!
Unlike weightlifting, the main goal of our jobs is not to lift heavy things, but develop a product that adds value to its users.
Unfortunately, many sdevs don't understand it.
Yes but the goal of school is to lift heavy things, basically. You're trying to do things that are difficult (for you) but don't produce anything useful for anyone else. That's how you gain the ability to do useful things.
Even after school, you need to lift weights once in a while or you lose your ability.
I wouldn't want to write raw bytes like Mel did though. Eventually some things are not worth getting good at.
2 replies →
I kinda get the point, but why is that? The goal of school is to teach something that's applicable in industry or academia.
Forklift operators don't lift things in their training. Even CS students start with pretty high level of abstraction, very few start from x86 asm instructions.
We need to make them implement ALU's on logical gates and wires if we want them to lift heavy things.
2 replies →