People seriously underestimate how underpowered and tiny llms are for the tasks they need to solve.

A trillion parameter model can't tell the difference between left and right. We will need to grow them millions to trillions of times before they are half as good as AI boosters claim they are.

This isn't the end of thinking any more than the watt steam engine was the end of horses. It will be centuries before we get there. And by that point the difference between man and machine will be at best academic.

Plus, on the way here today, I passed over a favela-type assemblage I can only describe as festering. No offense meant to its inhabitants - they are more real human beings than any of us.

Point being, the future has been here for long enough. And, as the adage goes, it's not evenly distributed. I never made any money from being strong or being intelligent; my usefulness, like that of any "nerd", was rooted in knowledge arbitrage. Now that the psychopaths in charge have cognitive prosthetics, I expect to be culled.

This is really bleak to me. We can do better than primogeniture, and of course the gender discrimination that goes along with it. You might as well write that subjugation of women is a "core value", simply because it has been for so many time periods.

> Physical robustness. Strength, perhaps brutality.

John Henry is not going to beat the steam shovel any time soon.

> For the lifetime of almost everyone alive now, reading, thinking, and writing have been valued skills which moved one up in society's hierarchy. This is a historical anomaly.

It's not an anomaly; rather, it's the other way round. These used to be highly specialized skills that carried significant status, and got democratized by mass education in the 20th century.

We're not prisoners of history. We don't have to go back to being serfs for the few people who own all the land, oil, food, energy, data centers, and operating systems. I hope.

In fact, there are few things less discriminatory than a random birth order. You may as well be assigned a random number at birth, and the lower your number, the more you're paid. In such a system, there's nothing to discriminate against; the ordering is absolute and immutable, and everyone is treated equally.

I agree that it's a bleak idea, but Animats wasn't talking about subjugating women.

I wonder how long before sex does actually become mutable.

And people can be born intersex

Your data is wrong

Just like taking meat from your arm to create new genitals doesn't make you a man, biologically (psychologically it may be different).

The oldest child is the most likely to survive. It is a rational and fair rule in such context.

“Fair” is a much trickier beast! My favorite approach to conceptualizing fairness is Rawls’ veil of ignorance: if you were going to be placed as a random member of society, rather than your current position, and you would still support a policy given this change, then the policy is fair. Knowing that, beyond the veil of ignorance, I may be a paraplegic, would I still support dismantling the ADA’s wheelchair accessibility requirements?

When you have to struggle for life, discriminating against some categories, such as disabled people is necessary for the whole group to survive. Animals do it, and humans in antiquity did it too, out of necessity. It's actually how evolution happens. Humans still do it to some extent when they choose how to mate : they discriminate.

Unfortunately, that is the current stage of humanity. We all currently live in a global subscription model for food, housing, safety, etc. No doubt that we will move beyond it eventually, but the current organization of society is kept in place by the owner class which benefits from the current arrangement.

One of the steps for moving beyond it is educating the modern day serfs (our peers) about reality as it is and alternative visions of a future where we are no longer selling our labor to the owner class. It will take generations.

The algorithms and bots that curate/generate content directed by accelerationists definitely want people to think that. There is a whole system in place now that can shape future outcomes just by convincing everyone that have no power when the opposite is true. The parent is probably a bot, or has been influenced by one to many there is nothing new under the sun solipsism bs.

For solving all things complex, there must be a plan.

Never is a long time and grand plans need to be executed for their real flaws to appear. The kind of flaws that are never what we thought in advance, usually much worse.

We do need to think about it until the end of humanity. We've build countless societies/civilizations and non of them survived the test of time. It's our ultimate puzzle.

There is probably [say] someone at MS who knows how an OS should work but replacing parts in a running machine isn't easy. Burning everything to the ground isn't ideal either but it does make building more attractive.

Now that I think about it though, it is more to do with inflexibility of the plan, rather than having a plan itself. If you are working off of a ideological commitment, rather than setting an end goal with a fuzzy time frame and a loose path to get there, then that's when you land in trouble.

You must never have lived through governmental collapse. History can tell you a lot about what to expect. Gangs will quickly form and seize everything they can.

The children and the women will be selling ass for basic necessities, raped by both neighbors and invaders, and killed for no reason at all. Not Or. And.

Nature does not value your literacy or views on gender. If you want to continue defending women or have any say in your own fate you're going to have to bulk up to do it.

I have (1990s Ukraine emerging from the ruins of the USSR).

>The children and the women will be selling ass for basic necessities, raped by both neighbors and invaders, and killed for no reason at all. Not Or. And.

Yeah, on that... Nope.

Dunno where you fantasized that from.

Prostitution for basic necessities existed, as it does in the US today (and everywhere else: poverty is the #1 reason for it).

Gangs did form. They didn't quite "seize everything they can". Protection racket was common, and preferred for the same reason that taxing a market economy is usually more profitable than a planned one.

"Invaders" weren't a thing.

Mass rapes weren't a thing.

People who "bulked up" and joined gangs, in their masses, weren't the winners.

Berezovsky, one of the most infamous Russian oligarchs, came from an academic background, with multiple publications in applied mathematics.

(Berezovsky number is a fun alternative to the Erdos number; mine is four [1])

Khodorkovsky was a chemical engineer by education who bootstrapped his business career by importing and selling computing equipment for a science education center he opened during perestroika. He used the funds to open a bank.

Gusinsky, Russia's media magnate, dropped out of engineering studies to major in theater. His diploma work was on Moliere's "Tartuffe".

Another theater major, Vladislav Surkov, went on to become Putin's chief propagandist and is primarily responsible for shaping the post-truth world we live in today.

Turning to Ukraine:

Kolomoyskiy, one of the most infamous Ukrainian oligarchs, was a metallurgical engineer.

Pinchuk, another oligarch, got a doctorate from the same university.

Poroshenko, an oligarch and a former president, got a degree in international relations and started a legal advisory firm for international trade before the USSR collapsed. His school buddy Saakashvili became the president of Georgia.

I can go on and on. A few thugs did make it big (e.g. Akhmetov); they were exception rather than the norm.

As the USSR collapsed, the people with enough smarts to be able to "seize everything" were either politicians or nerds.

Your strongman fantasy has no basis in reality.

"Nature" valued people with PhDs, it turns out.

[1] https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/freetools/collab-dist?...

You seem to have forgotten that firearms have been invented.

You might still only be a farmer if you're smart, but you can at least be one of the more productive farmers with a more smoothly running farm.

"Load bearing phrase", as they say.

A stupid ass that just keeps pushing on often goes further than a smart ass who gets distracted.

Where does the human in the loop somehow manage to utilize super-human reasoning better than another person?

I'm not suggesting it's impossible, so much as wondering if we can reach a place where the human is truly irrelevant to the process, and can't make a better decision than the superhuman entity.

I'm not sure this is ever possible. It's more of a thought experiment. What's between here and there? Right now we can use pseudo-intelligence from silicon to our advantage, and being smarter than average is clearly a massively outsized advantage. It's similar to how being able to automate tasks gives you an outsized advantage, yet in so many more ways. But what if that advantage thins or even vanishes?

None of this Jack inherits but wants to live in the big city and be an architect. He'll inherit and keep because there is no architecture job to be had.

As someone who grew up on a farm, "you may be a farmer but you could be a productive one" is so intensely depressing. Farming is a shitty job that requires insane amounts of back-breaking labor, never-ending toil, and all this at a time when climate change is going to utterly fuck over farmland and destroy crop yields.

Some of these things you could make yourself or were commonly self-made instead of buying, but that, too, requires planning and discipline.

I'm a bit shocked that some people think of medieval life as something like Elbonia in Dilbert comics. Heck, I even find the middle ages a pretty boring time in human history, but I know enough to understand that it wasn't as simple as "everyone lived in the mud and ate mud".

You could buy some temporary luxuries to enjoy, or save yourself a bit of labour on something you'd normally do yourself. But you couldn't really invest in your future the way we would today - everything you depended on had to be something you could make yourself, buying an implement you couldn't maintain would be setting yourself up for trouble. Increasing your productivity with tools wasn't a huge help because you always had enough labor available to hit severely diminishing returns on the land you owned. And any object of value is always at risk of being seized by the local lord or a passing army or what have you.

These are very important things and most of them take place on longer or much longer timescales than a few months. Early humans weren't monkeys, and after they had left the tropics, they couldn't survive without planning because getting food is difficult in winter.

Decreasingly so, thanks to climate change. The increase in temp isn't the problem. It's that climate change increases the frequency of outlier temperatures on a seasonable basis. Crops don't just fail if the average is too hot. They fail if there are too many hot/cold days in a growing season. And that is the unpredictable thing we're going to be running into in the future. Certainly while we're all alive. It's already happening.

Latin American climate refugees have been fleeing north precisely because of climate change decreasing crop yields.

Today? On an engineer's salary? Ha!

Which you mostly don't need today. You may have a lawn guy, take your car to a mechanic, and use a washer/dryer to do most of your laundry.

"Oh well, we were in an anomalous time of social growth, time to go backwards! We won't even need to read or write or think! It's all just too bad, but that's just the way the world works, like it did in 1800." [or pick your date before any current person was alive]

Lots of people have started considering a time of significant "progress" as "an anomaly", as if the world should always just be the way it was in, say, 1800, like that was actually the realistic pinnacle of human society. You also seem to be loosely basing this argument on the availability of "rich nerds", which seems like a bizarre non-sequitur. Computing once didn't exist, and we still valued reading, writing and thinking.

I'm kind of baffled by how regularly I see comments like this. Like, come on. This is basically the AI black pill, no?

I think, in a way, the Internet itself is the virus. It has infiltrated us and our minds. Rage and suffering are what get clicks and engagement. The Internet has become a suffering engine, which spins angst into gold.

Basically England Circa 1851, plus democracy.

And because it was all put together more or less accidentally, it can all fall apart. So worrying about that and trying to do something about it is like discovering that under the deck of the ship are engine rooms, rudders, riveted steel plates and navigation maps.

Its not a slight on your friend, but one would expect him to have a mental model of a rudder, even if he does not know about the impact of cavitation.

More Black pills flying around are just an indication that the rudder is hanging off or the rivets are leaking a bit. It can be fixed, as long as no one tells the passengers the ship is actually flat or the engine room is how elites maintain power.

A mix of political scientists, politicians, investors, entrepreneurs, lawyers, judges, scientists, technologists, and economists have tried to mold society to their own theoretical vision for at least 150+ years. Society then reacts to that in both good and bad ways. This distorts the vision, as society changes it to its concerns. And the cycle repeats.

I think of Karl Polyani's The Great Transformation has a great way of looking at the attempts to force "market society" on England in the 1700 and 1800s, and the reaction that all societies exhibit in the face of unconstrained technological or economic change. Both the imposition of change and reaction to it can be violent, it's hard to predict. We've had such a relatively steady state since WW2 in the developed nations that we're not used to this cycle.

The image that sticks in my mind the most is the Meiji Emperor in a 1870s photo dressed in a saville row suit and bowler hat. For Japan the most incredible social card to play that says “we are going to be like these foreigners and their secrets to wealth”

Nothing accidental there, but that still leaves visible joins on the Japanese soul.

What percentage of the jobs in a modern office are truly necessary? If automation had the ability to kill jobs over the long term, we'd all have been idle since the industrial revolution. But instead we keep inventing new things that we need.

Billions have been poured into agents and there’s no sign that they will get to a place where they on the path toward generating returns to justify more good money being invested into chasing bad.

See above.

I feel bad for them, I really do. The posts I see here are madness and so disconnected from reality it’s actually disturbing.

Every professor at any university has a dozen more project ideas than they have graduate students, every factory boss has a dozen more optimisations than ways to implement them, and looking up into the night sky we have 95% of it that cannot be explained.

The gap is not too few smart people, nor too few "jobs" that need smarts. The gap is being prepared to arrange society and wealth so the "job" is discovery, science, sharing. We are no longer hunter gatherers, no longer a feudal society, perhaps we shall stop being whatever this one is and try a new one.

(and no, I don't think there is a name for the new one yet (its not socialism, maybe not capitalism).

Lets just not fall back to Feudal if we can help it

We don’t use chimpanzees for any knowledge work today, even though they’d be better at it than some other animals.

Humans with many agents will be more productive, but the tendency has been for these models is to regress to the mean when it comes to strategic insights.

Here are some words to live by[0]. I don't agree with everything Derek Silvers says, esp about philosophy. Its more of a guiding principle that drives rather than divides.

[0]: https://fluidself.org/books/self-help/how-to-live

There are jobs that demand robustness, but they are about applying knowledge in extreme conditions, not about letting an AI do the thinking.

Not really disagreeing with you, but there are a few obvious examples. A lot of construction jobs are still labour intensive, and I've seen a lot of people who don't last the first day, let alone their first week. Also, security jobs, say in nightclubs, also value physical robustness. Orderlies in hospital, require the ability to move bodies, alive and otherwise. The machine is usually better.

Knowledge is a unique resource compared to the other traditional factors of economic production (land, labor, and capital). It is often invested in with capital (education and tools), but it is carried with the human, and leaves with them. It is always decaying - knowledge workers should be in constant learning mode, and stale knowledge eventually becomes a drag on performance.

I'd argue the future is about knowledge workers all becoming managers. When you use agentic AI, it has the flavor of the skills of management. Management is "a practice and a liberal art", according to Drucker, one that has been in poor supply for some time. LLMs are have somewhat stale knowledge and require the human, tools, and RAG to freshen it. And LLMs will always regress to the mean. It is pretty good at pattern analysis and starts to get shaky and mediocre with synthesis. It requires very nuanced, and elaborate prompting to shape its token output towards insightful results that aren't a standard answer. For coding exercises, that can be fine, but at high complexity levels, or when dealing with issues of strategy or evaluation, it is a platitude generator and has no unique competitive advantage.

In other words, competent, talented management mixed with knowledge work is the scarcity we are heading towards. This is arguably why you're seeing the rise of "markdown frameworks" that people swear improve performance, it's the beginnings of management scaffolding for AI.

Technical folks struggle with valuing management skills, and I expect this will increase its value and scarcity.

As for "Physical robustness. Strength, perhaps brutality. Competence in physical tasks." I think the robots will be replacing that pretty shortly.

"Honesty. Parentage. Birth order (see primogeniture.) Those matter in per-technological societies, and they matter in failed societies now. Those are perhaps humanity's core values."

Ehhhhh not really? What about Christianity, where the meek shall inherit the Earth, and love is the core value (putting aside modern day Pharisees and Charlatans that twist the underlying value system)? Or Islam, whose core value is submission to God? While there have been Societies that valued parentage and birth order, that's far from universal.

This leads to the reformulation of knowledge workers as "human capital", and it's hardly post-capitalist. A capitalist society is one where people assemble different forms of capital to produce capital returns that are larger than the sum of the capital inputs, where the possibilities available to you depend on the amount and quality of capital that you have access to. This is all still very relevant when discussing human capital - access to human capital is determined by the quality of your professional networks, whether you decide to be present in geographic talent clusters (i.e. cities as centers of industry), and whether you have sufficient financial capital available in trade.

AI will not transition us to a post-capitalist society. Its promise is solely the ability to replace human capital with other forms: chips and electricity. It does not spell the death of human labor any more than computers and spreadsheets did for accountants.

> A capitalist society is one where people assemble different forms of capital to produce capital returns that are larger than the sum of the capital inputs, where the possibilities available to you depend on the amount and quality of capital that you have access to.

The reason we live in post-capitalism is that capital is largely abundant these days, although many regional and cultural barriers remain due to bias, prejudice and risk aversion. But is no longer the determining factor of economic growth - necessary but not sufficient.

> This is all still very relevant when discussing human capital - access to human capital is determined by the quality of your professional networks, whether you decide to be present in geographic talent clusters (i.e. cities as centers of industry), and whether you have sufficient financial capital available in trade.

I feel this is a stretch. In a non-capitalist economic system, for example, the wealth of the collective is arguably also bounded by the scarcity of knowledge in that collective. Knowledge does not have the same properties of capital accumulation that Marx described.

> AI will not transition us to a post-capitalist society. Its promise is solely the ability to replace human capital with other forms: chips and electricity. It does not spell the death of human labor any more than computers and spreadsheets did for accountants.

Spoken like someone who didn't even read my parent comment. We are already living in a post-capitalist society, and have been for several decades.

"Chips and electricity" is reductio ad absurdum, and ignores a vast number of other input factors. AI will not eliminate labor or human capital, that's just marketing. It certainly will transform it as other tools have.

To extrapolate from fewer people were formally educated or literate to intelligence wasn’t valued is absurd.

As for your part about reading and writing. Literacy has always been a very valuable skill that would increase your social standing. It was scarce and difficult to acquire before the printing press, but it was always valuable.

  > So what was valued? ...

Then consider the role of the clergy in the Middle Ages, and say nothing of Rome and large bureaucracy (Roman engineering alone).

On top of this you need to ignore very large bureaucracies and trading networks in Asia to go far with your narrative (Persian, Turkish, Mongol, Indian and Chinese).

There were a good deal of powerful nerds before the 1700s.

My point here is that the prevalence of smart people in the population exceeded the demand for them until the second half of the 20th century. Then, for one human lifetime, large numbers of smart people were needed. That period may be ending.

It may have already ended. In the US, about half of college graduates have jobs that don't require a college degree.

The same goes for other occupations, and...farming. Breeding cattle is a complex science, so is growing crops consistently and valuing the production.

When nail guns and cheap power tools came in, every other yokel was suddenly a builder. That is when I got out

Sorry but that is just not true.

Sure farmers aren't academics, but the sheer number of tasks, and tools required to efficiently do those tasks were vast. Innovation in winnowing was literlly life and death, as was plant/animal breeding traits.

Observing and reacting to changes in plants, lands, water, animals was critical to getting a good harvest. Packing and storing food was critical to surviving the winter.

Sure, the lack of literacy hampered knowledge recording and dissemination.

BUT, if we look mine the vast memory that is classics, knowledge, wit and cleverness were prised as often as strength and beauty.

This is a "noble savage" conception of the past. Thinking/cleverness/craftiness was highly rewarded even in preliterate societies. Even in war, "polytropos" Odysseus comes out ahead of the dumb brutes with bigger spears.

AI is not a problem because it is AI. It is because of political circumstances.

Think beyond the small worldview where technology and valuation are everything and you are just a pawn. Then you see that a better world is possible. The first step is then to not give up.

The premise here is that AI works well enough to automate the “smart” people jobs. No one but delusional workaholics are afraid that their job will get automated because they cling to the job in itself. So clearly, this is not about the tech itself.

There wasn’t a college boom post-WWII because technology came and demanded it.

> That may be where we go once AI does the thinking. That's where we go when smarts are not a scarce resource.

Take me by the hand, circumstance. I am yours to be swept away.

This is some weird manosphere bullshit. Pre-industrial societies invented philosophy and writing. People across the world know the name of Socrates from 2500 years ago. They know stories from Homer 2800 years ago.

It's a mistake (a) to think pre-industrial people were grug-brained cavemen (b) that we're going to revert into the same cavemen because a computer can do your pointless six-figure office job.

It’s ownership of capital and technology.

Plumbers aren’t suddenly getting rich. At best they’re not losing jobs at the rate everyone else is, but once so many people lose jobs then they can’t afford plumbers either. So even plumbers are worse off even if they’re not as badly off as the rest of us.

And all this assumes that humanoid robots don’t develop and succeed which is a major assumption.

Dude we already live in a world dominated by capital that displaced the need for brute strength. Just go to a construction site in a developed economy. For which the returns to the owners of assets drive continual reinvestment.

Posts like this expose how many here think they bring something to the table when it’s just noise.

You're ignoring the astronomers of ancient Mesopotamia, the scribes of Egypt, the grammarians of India, the philosophers of ancient Greece, the orators of Rome, the physicians of Islam, the scholars of the Middle Ages, the masters of the Renaissance, and all the great natural philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, biologists, of all the ages up to 1800.

We are a technological civilisation, a scientific civilisation. Who do you think comes up with all the technology? Alexander, the Great Butcher? Attila the Hun? Jenghis Khan?

We live in the civilisation that was born in Athens, not in Sparta. Knowledge and wisdom always are the greatest power that shapes reality. This won't change just because OpenAI made a viral app.