Thoughts on thinking

> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will.

So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity.

My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but I still enjoy kneading it by hand. The incredibly good artisanal bakery down the street did not reduce my enjoyment of baking, even though I cannot compete with them in quality by any measure. Modern slip casting can make superior pottery by many different quality measures, but potters enjoy throwing it on a wheel and producing unique pieces.

But if your idea of fun is tied to the "no one else can do this but me", then you've been doing it wrong before AI existed.

Yeah, I think you're onto something. I'm not sure the performative motivation is necessarily bad, but def different

Maybe AI is like Covid, where it will reveal that there were subtle differences in the underlying humans all along, but we just never realized it until something shattered the ability for ambiguity to persist.

I'm inclined to so that this is a destabilising thing, regardless of my thoughts on the "right" way to think about creativity. Multiple ways could coexist before, and now one way no longer "works".

I think you are way past the argument the writer is making.

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

Sometimes the fun is in creating something useful, as a human, for humans. We want to feel useful to our tribe.

If the core idea that was intended to be broadcasted to the world was a "contribution", and LLM simply expanded on it, then I would view LLMs simply a component in that broadcasting operation (just as the internet infrastructure would be), and the author's contribution would still be intact, and so should his enjoyment.

But his argument does not align with that. His argument is that he enjoys the act of writing itself. If he views his act of writing (regardless of the idea being transmitted) as his "contribution to world's knowledge", then I have to say I disagree - I don't think his writing is particularly interesting in and of itself. His ideas might be interesting (even if I disagree), but he obviously doesn't find the formation of ideas enjoyable enough.

Good point.

Self-actualisation should be about doing the things that only you can. Not better than anyone else, but more like, the specific things that ony you, with the same of your experience, expertise, values and constraints can do.

Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.

If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.

Knowing that what I do anyone can do, no matter how well I'll do it, is discouraging. Because then, what is my purpose? What can I say that I'm good at?

I mean yeah apparently so for the OP but I’m sure he did not mean for it to be that way intentionally

Would you say that the chess players became "purposeless" with Deep Blue, or Go players with Alpha Go?

It's interesting that you name those examples, because Lee Sedol, the all-time great Go player, retired shortly after losing to Alpha Go, saying: "Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated... losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired." [1, 2]

So for some, yes. It is of course also true that many people derive self-worth and fulfillment from contributing positively to the world, and AI automating the productive work in which they specialize can undermine that.

[1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191127004800315

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/world/asia/lee-saedol-go-...

The primary motivation should be wisdom. No one can become wise for you. You don't become any wiser yourself that way. And a machine isn't even capable of being wise.

So while AI might remove the need for human beings to engage in certain practical activities, it cannot eliminate the theoretical, because by definition, theory is done for its own sake, to benefit the person theorizing by leading them to understanding something about the world. AI can perhaps find a beneficial place here in the way books or teachers do, as guides. But in all these cases, you absolutely need to engage with the subject matter yourself to profit from it.

I am in no way disputing that some people would feel that way because of AI, just as some performing classical musicians felt that way in the advent of the audio recorder.

What I am saying is that (1) I regard this as an unhealthy relationship to creativity (and I accept that this is subjective), and (2) that most people do not feel that way, as can be confirmed by the fact that chess, go, and live music performances are all still very much practiced.

"The fun has been sucked out of the process of preparing food because nothing I make organically can compete with what restaurants/supermarkets already produces—or soon will."

I don’t think it’s solely the rub in others faces that they can’t create. You hope they learn to as well.

> So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity.

People realize this at various points in their life, and some not at all.

In terms the author might accept, the metaphor of the stoic archer comes to mind. Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. In this cast, the action is writing while the target is having better thoughts.

Much of our life is governed by the success at which we hit our targets, but why do that to oneself? We have a choice in how we approach the world, and setting our intentions toward action and away from targets is a subtle yet profound shift.

A clearer example might be someone who wants to make a friend. Let's imagine they're at a party and they go in with the intention of making a friend, they're setting themselves up for failure. They have relatively little control over that outcome. However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically.

Choosing one's goals - primarily grounded in action - is an under-appreciated perspective.

Yeah, there’s something this person needs to embrace about the process rather than being some kind of modern John Henry, comparing themselves to a machine. There’s still value in the things a person creates despite what AI can derive from its training model of Reddit comments. Find peace in the process of making and you’ll continue to love it.

We need to start taking a leaf of advice from spiritual knowledge that "You are not the doer." You were never the doer. The doing happened on its own. You were merely a vessel, an instrument. A Witness. Observe your inner mechanisms of mind, and you will quickly come to this realisation.

That's a deeper question that only you can answer. I can only say that your thinking based on how you phrased it doesn't really lead to happiness in general

I think the article is getting at the fact that in a post-AGI world, human skill is a depreciating asset. This is terrifying because we exchange our physical and mental labor for money. Consider this: why would a company hire me if - with enough GPU and capital - they can copy-and-paste 1,000 of AI agents much smarter to do the work?

With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless.

While I'm genuinely excited about the scientific progress AGI will bring (e.g. curing all diseases), I really hope there's a place for me in the post-AGI world. Otherwise, like the potters and bakers who can't compete in the market with cold-hard industrial machines, I'll be selling my python code base on Etsy.

No Set Gauge had an excellent blog post about this. Have a read if you want a dash of existential dread for the weekend: https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition.

It sounds as if the reward is primarily monetary in this case.

As some others have commented, you can find rewards that aren't monetary to motivate you, and you can find ways to make your work so unique that people are willing to pay for it.

Technology forces us to use the creative process to more creatively monetize our work.

This is only terrifying because of how we’ve structured society. There’s a version of the trajectory we’re on that leads to a post-scarcity society. I’m not sure we can pull that off as a species, but even if we can, it’s going to be a bumpy road.

the barrier to that version of the trajectory is that "we" haven't structured society. what structure exists, exists as a result of capital extracting as much wealth from labor as labor will allow (often by dividing class interests among labor).

agreed on the bumpy road - i don't see how we'll reach a post-scarcity society unless there is an intentional restructuring (which, many people think, would require a pretty violent paradigm shift).

That seems like a very narrow perspective. For one, it is neither clear we will end up with AGI at all—we could have reached or soon reach a plateau with the possibilities of the LLM technology—or whether it’ll work like what you’re describing; the energy requirements might not be feasible, for example, or usage is so expensive it’s just not worth applying it to every mundane task under the sun, like writing CRUD apps in Python. We know how to build flying cars, technically, but it’s just not economically sustainable to use them. And finally, you never know what niches are going to be freed up or created by the ominous AGI machines appearing on the stage.

I wouldn’t worry too much yet.

I think the point is that part of the value of a work of art to this point is the effort or lack of effort involved in its creation. Evidence of effort has traditionally been a sign of the quality of thought put into a work as a product of time spent in its creation. LLMs short circuit this instinct in evaluation making some think works generated by AI are better than they are while simultaneously making those who create work see it as devaluation of work (which is the demotivator here).

I'm curious why so any people see creators and intellectuals as competitive people trying to prove they're better than someone else. This isn't why people are driven to seek knowledge or create Art. I'm sure everyone has their reasons for this, but it feels like insecurity from the outside.

Looking at debates about AI and Art outside of IP often brings out a lot of misunderstandings about what makes good Art and why Art is a thing man has been compelled to make since the beginning of the species. It takes a lifetime to select techniques and thought patterns that define a unique and authentic voice. A lifetime of working hard on creating things adds up to that voice. When you start to believe that work is in vain because the audience doesn't know the difference it certainly doesn't make it feel rewarding to do.

> With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless.

"Knowledge workers" being in charge is a recent idea that is, perhaps, reaching end of life. Up until WWII or so, society had more smart people than it had roles for them. For most of history, being strong and healthy, with a good voice and a strong personality, counted for more than being smart. To a considerable extent, it still does.

In the 1950s, C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" became famous for pointing out that the smart people were on the way up.[1] They hadn't won yet; that was about two decades ahead. The triumph of the nerds took until the early 1990s.[2] The ultimate victory was, perhaps, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. That was the last major power run by goons. That's celebrated in The End of History and the Last Man (1992).[3] Everything was going to be run by technocrats and experts from now on.

But it didn't last. Government by goons is back. Don't need to elaborate on that.

The glut of smart people will continue to grow. Over half of Americans with college educations work in jobs that don't require a college education. AI will accelerate that process. It doesn't require AI superintelligence to return smart people to the rabble. Just AI somewhat above the human average.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

[2] https://archive.org/details/triumph_of_the_nerds

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...

I think we think of it as 'extracting' because people are coerced into jobs that they hate. I think AI can help us exit the paradigm of working as extracting. Basically, passion economy (ai handles marketing, internet distribution). Allows you to focus on what you actually like, but it can actually make money this time.

to be trite, we've been promised a world where AI will help to alleviate the menial necessities so that we're free to pursue our passions. in reality, what we're getting is AI that replaces the human component of passion projects (art, music, engineering as craft), leaving the "actually-hard-to-replace" "low-class" roles (cashiering, trash collection, housekeeping, farming, etc) to humans who generally have few other economic options.

without a dramatic shift in wealth distribution (no less than the elimination of private wealth and the profit motive), we can't have a post-scarcity society. capitalism depends entirely upon scarcity, artificial or not.

>> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome.

The primary reason is not that it relieves us of the disappointment, but that worrying about the outcome increases our anxiety and impacts our action which hampers the outcome.

Let's be honest, humans have been creating slop for much longer then machines. Not a bad thing, but don't put it all on a pedestal.

I can draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's a serious contribution?

Where is the line drawn?

Is me sneezing a contribution to the world of art, since art is all about interpretation™®© and some smarmy critic will do a piece on how my sneeze is a visceral physical performative art illustrating the downfall of the modern world where technology binds us and we spend too much time inside surrounded by screens and dust and co2.

Nah, I just sneezed. That's all.

If that's the source of author's existential crisis, they may possibly find it interesting to meditate on the idea that there's no thinker behind the thought, and the impermanence of "self".

Even if they don't buy all the way into the whole hard incompatiblism thing, the idea is that they may find some value in the process.

It sounds to me like you are maybe agreeing with me but thought that I was expressing the opposite of what I did, and so are phrasing it as if it were disagreement?

Or maybe you are just agreeing, and did understand that my point was that I don’t think pressing a button is a contribution.

If you are disagreeing with my comment, can you explain how this is disagreeing?

> With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless.

The article you've linked fundamentally relies on the assumption that "the tasks can be done better/faster/cheaper by AIs". (Plus, of course, the idea that AGI would be achieved, but without this one the whole discussion would be pointless as it would lack the subject, so I'm totally fine with this one.)

Nothing about AGI (as in "a machine that can produce intelligent thoughts on a given matter") says that human and non-human knowledge workers would have some obvious leverage over each other. Just like my coworkers' existence doesn't hurt mine, a non-human intelligence is of no inherent threat. Not by definition.

Non-intelligent industrial robotics is well-researched and generally available, yet we have plenty of sweatshops because they turn out to be cheaper than robot factories. Not fun, not great, I'm no fond of this, but I'm merely taking it as a fact, as it is how it currently is. So I really wouldn't dare to unquestionably assume that "cheaper" would be true.

And then "better" isn't obvious either. Intelligence is intelligence, it can think, it can make guesses, it can make logical conclusions, and it can make mistakes too - but we've yet to see even the tiniest hints of "higher levels" of it, something that would make humans out of the league of thinking machines if we're ranking on some "quality" of thinking.

I can only buy "faster" - and even that requires an assumption that we ignore any transhumanist ideas. But, surely, "faster" alone doesn't cut it?

I’ve thought the same. Goons powered by AI, that is.

I think you articulated the actual point of the OP. It isn’t so much about creating something better than anyone else, but it is a feeling that your contribution and world means something.

AI can somehow cause one to react with a feeling of futility.

Engaging in acts of creation, and responding to others acts of creation seems a way out of that feeling.

It is the societal recognition and value of level and contribution that AI threatens and weakens. This is the true loss.

> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome.

This is true, but the tough part is it's not the whole story.

First, obviously along some dimensions of life, targets matter. If we need to grow food to eat, the pleasant feeling of working in the garden isn't going to be sufficient; if we need to strengthen a dike to prevent the town from being inundated, the sensation of swinging a hammer isn't going to cut it.

> However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically.

That is true, but it's also possible for a person to feel like they are being authentic (and even to be correct about that), yet still seem off-putting to others, perhaps for reasons they aren't aware of. Even if they're not focused on the "target" of making a friend, there are intermediate targets like "interact with other people in a way that they (not just I) enjoy", and if those targets aren't met, eventually a reckoning must come.

So the second point is that evaluating the "action" is an internal perspective that can become out of sync with reality even in cases where the result isn't so critical. We may not want to be focused on "end goals" but we need some amount of focus on external calibrators of some sort, to keep us from descending into solipcism.

Then the third thing is that (maybe because of the first two), people have a tendency to extend their results-oriented mindset more and more, and even if an individual resists this, they have to deal with the fact that everyone around them may be doing it. So even if you take the view that writing is a human activity that should be valued for the gusto and AI writing is missing the point, if everyone around you stops writing and starts using AI instead, a lot of important stuff in the penumbra of the activity can be weakened. Like it becomes harder to put together a writing club/workshop etc., maybe even to buy books. And in particular it can become harder to straddle the line between target and action in terms of employment and generally meeting your material needs. There are plenty of people who have artistic skill and have a job where they get to use it to some extent (e.g., graphic design), and even though it may have some distasteful commercial aspects, they can still get some of that "action satisfaction" from their job. But if AI eats all the graphic design jobs, now you have to spend all your work hours doing something that gives you none of that satisfaction, and cram all the satisfying artistic action into your free time.

The same is true for technical tasks. A lot of the dismay over the use of AI for programming arises because people used to be able to get paid for doing things that also gave them a sense of satisfaction for engaging in a sort of problem-solving task that they enjoyed as an action. Now it's harder to do that, but everyone still has to eat, so they have to give up some of the satisfaction they used to get because they can't get paid for it anymore.

I agree that, for an individual, shifting the mindset to action can be helpful. But we as individuals live in the world, and the more an individual's mindset becomes out of step with that of his society, the harder it becomes to live in accordance with that mindset. So I think we also need to apply pressure to create a societal mindset that values and supports the kinds of individual mindsets we want people to have.

This is a very millennial style of thinking (myself included). It feels like people can't just have a hobby, they have to be great at it. The sense of greatness, the sense of accomplishment is not merely doing a thing, but getting to an outcome which is measurable and/or which we can tell others or put on social media. I thought it was only me, but turns out this is all around me. I started gardening, spending 15 mins a day, I talk to a friend around it. They tell me about this gardening insta page, tips, and community. The community has people doing things at a better pace / rate than me. Putting in more effort than me. I suddenly feel that rush to have some competition. Then it becomes boring because the fun was the fifteen minutes i spent in there, not the part where it occupied rest of my day. Side projects, writing, painting, I somehow see people doing this all the time. Picking the wrong goals, or expecting a dopamine hit from wrong places.

Choosing the right goals is the great way to put that in perspective. I don't know what happened with hobbies, but it's not there anymore. (so much that i dont tell people i do xyz things on the side)

But I'm a human, I need to eat.

In case that would happen - welp, I'm out of job, out of something I went to school and studied for a few years, now without purpose or "real" skills (as LLMs are on the same level as I).

To put it another way: if we made a machine that could instantly create a baby, how would that effect the notion of motherhood? Sure children are adopted or born to surrogacy but the connection formed during gestation and that time itself is a huge part of our notion of the connection between mother and child. Being an Artist is the same thing, an identity bred from gestation proved by the ends.

Before the rise of Western culture, ancient cultures didn't attribute an artist to a work. Think Ancient Greece or Egypt. These cultures still produced Art because the culture valued it, but in society these creators were seen as tradesmen or they were slaves. AI used in this way both reduces cultural value and removes or reduces the social status of the creator.

I find it telling that LLMs are quite adept at mash-ups and decisions based on data analysis which in my experience is what most business managers do. Why are we not using AI to replace worthless middle management? After all they are lower skilled and higher paid than many developers. I'd argue that anyone who thinks you can replace a job with AI is not doing that job as a career. AI devs who think LLM can replace Java web developers are not Java web developers. Internet trolls who think LLM can replace Artists are not Artists. I think this moment we're in is revealing that we've become so siloed that we have lost our curiosity about each other and cultural history. It's frightening to see how we're changing our culture to accommodate a technology at the expense of people and just how blase we are about it.