Price of human intelligence is going up actually, because there's ever-decreasing amount of it, and we've invented a cheap substitute that makes people even stupider.
Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.
It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?
What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.
That's the issue. No one can really systematize "discovery".
How many "group thinkers", "creatives", "non-group thinkers", "nihilists", "anarchists", "contemplatives" in the last - say, 500 years, 5000 years, whatever - have been occasioned by the fall of an Apple? Or the fall of a branch? Or a leaf? Or what have you?
Why did it spark a new flame in the mind of Newton? Science can't explain. If we could, we'd teach everyone to be that sort of contemplative.
In schools there are massive changes. I was told that kids are more relaxed and care less about education and that the value of the smart kids, the know it all kids, is going down as more students can access Ai and they are not as helpless as they were when failing to tune in while in the class. The dynamics are changing and students are less suicidal too apparently because the pressure to deliver scholastically is going down because no one knows what the future holds and what will be valued.
I'd expect this to be temporary while the educational system figures out how to manage LLM-bolstered students.
The intern I worked with last year said her graduating class all felt like they were the last "real" graduates. Meaning: the class after her had less credibility in her eyes, having been presumed to have used AI to get past the "pons asinorum"/"bridge of asses".
That depends if there's still a demand for educated people. Doesn't matter how good they are for society - only how much demand there is. If there's no demand, the schools have no reason to change.
On the one hand, one really can't remove all of humanity from the economy. Humans are what makes the economy matter, and if you cut them all out, they'll just replace the economy with something else, call it "the economy", and move on. ("Butlerian Jihad" pivot, I suppose.)
On the other hand... I'm reminded of dock workers and the advent of container ships. The only way to handle that was to basically pay those workers a living wage for the rest of their lives to ... not work.
So... we have options, I guess!
[1] In Orson Welles's Time Machine, the eloi were the lazy "child-like" humans not challenged to grow intellectually.
Read the comments: it's people angry that AI is everywhere and pessimistic about its current and future use. Not in the "it'll become too powerful" sense but in the "it's now and always will be far less useful than people think" sense.
This is the least pro-AI tech community on the internet.
Some years ago when I was more willing to waste time, I used to argue with people on here who disabled javascript in their web browsers and complained that websites didn't work. That wasn't the dark ages... it was around covid era times. HNers are often proud luddites, or at least proud tech minimalists.
Read the rest of the comments. There are massive AI boosters on here - strong enough boosters that it seems legitimate to wonder whether they are shills. There are also massive skeptics.
Unless the President decides to eat some humble pie and basically surrender, this one is end up much worse than Vietnam, and the ramifications global.
What worries me the most is that I can’t imagine students and citizens going to protest en masse on the streets against the war. They’re too busy to complain on X and Tiktok to do anything about it.
> Unless the President decides to eat some humble pie and basically surrender
I don't think that option even exists. In my opinion the world order changed this year, the USA w/ it's trillions of dollars of GDP and huge military lost it's grip on the ME.
Even assuming a diffrent president, the situation is much worse than it was 7 months ago.
Iran basically holds global oil supplies in a chokehold, and should the US choose to withdraw unconditionally today, Iran would still collect tariffs on all ships passing the strait, and be free to develop nuclear weapons.
Who's going to stop them ? Any attack would simply further constrain oil supplies, with increased costs as a direct consequence.
Regardless of the outcome, global oil prices have taken a permanent hike up. They'll likely drop quite a bit if/when the war ends, and Iran (or allies) stops bombing Saudi oil pipes, and likely also when the Ukraine/Russia war ends, where Russia can alleviate some of the pressure on asia.
If nothing else, its at least driving adoption of the electrification of the western society, and I'm seeing heat pumps and EVs selling at an increased pace. That obviously doesn't help if your electrical grid is also fossil fuel based, but there are also major renewable energy plants being commissioned.
He isn't, but nearly everything he puts out there is AI produced. His video thumbnails look awful, and that task manager he built for macOS is fully AI coded. Not saying it's a bad thing, but I dunno it's kinda all ugly looking to me.
Every pixel is where I put it, so that's all that matters to me. If it's ugly, it's intentionally so. AI had no input into designing the visuals or UX.
What is moral? It is not a law of the universe. It is a subjective and culture-defined human construct. It is very ineffective to try and understand metaphysics through the ever-shifting lens of morality.
I love both of these, and I wonder why would I need mainstream religion when stories like these are deep enough to provide answers, hope and meaning for those who seek it. If the message resonates with you, why not adopt it? Nobody could ever prove they’re just fantasy.
Sorry for the digression, I’m just an atheist with a love for philosophy and spirituality.
Unlike the other religions, "The Egg" doesn't impose morals or pretend to be an infallible historical record, prophet of things to come, or explainer of the universe. It's just a cute philosophical story that exists entirely within the imagination to make us feel better and less lost.
That is to say, it just lacks the same "baggage" of the others.
I’m not against, I’m just saying one can find answers to the deep questions of life without having to buy into religion wholesale. No one ever told me this was even an option, especially due to the toxic discourse around atheism and Christianity by Americans that have poisoned the conversation for everybody else (quelle surprise…)
Conviction influences behavior. You can believe whatever you want: and we believe things based on experience, and personal knowledge. And we 'stick' to those beliefs for certain reasons.
There is a friction to being pushed into believing something else: read up on Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave' for an idea of what I'm talking about.
Your own personal beliefs can become a religion if you start to shape your life around it: that is, you start thinking of, and living by, principles or guidelines that affect your behavior. The stories offer up core ideas or beliefs, but no principles or guidelines to live by.
If you find the story interesting, and don't form rigid guidelines or rules to live by: then perhaps you've just been influenced in a positive way, a way that resonates with you.
The problem with conviction, is when people try to force it onto others. It's something that has to be grown from within.
The unnecessary hyperbole ruins your argument. Not all of tech is about breaking social contracts. Whose livelihood is destroying the engineer that design better protein folding software? Linus made the world better and richer for everyone. Even the humble startup shipping yet another calendar tool isn’t harming anyone or being the direct cause of layoffs of other workers.
>Whose livelihood is destroying the engineer that design better protein folding software?
Hasn’t homology modeling essentially been abandoned by researchers at this point? Maybe their livelihood wasn’t completely ruined but if you had specialized in that technology, you were probably materially harmed by the introduction of AlphaFold. That harm doesn’t outweigh the obvious benefits, but I would be very surprised if the harm doesn’t exist.
>Even the humble startup shipping yet another calendar tool isn’t harming anyone or being the direct cause of layoffs of other workers.
If they’re undercutting and outcompeting an existing calendar tool, they very well could be contributing to layoffs at their competitors.
I think we both know that it’s not just Uber who is violating social contracts. AI companies are routinely violating laws that would have the feds knocking at my door. Facebook? Airbnb? Uber? Every meal delivery service? The list goes on. They’re all like this.
