←back to thread

Thoughts on thinking

(dcurt.is)
644 points bradgessler | 1 comments | 16 May 25 19:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.229s | source
Show context
curl-up ◴[16 May 25 20:02 UTC] No.44009301[source]▶
> 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.

replies(14): >>44009329 #>>44009344 #>>44009382 #>>44009383 #>>44009447 #>>44009580 #>>44009601 #>>44009759 #>>44009774 #>>44009818 #>>44009920 #>>44009945 #>>44009977 #>>44010301 #
wcfrobert ◴[16 May 25 21:35 UTC] No.44009977[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>44010098 #>>44010253 #>>44010416 #>>44011738 #
1. drdaeman ◴[17 May 25 03:04 UTC] No.44011738[source]▶
> 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?