Loquebantur
You even imply, economic value was determined correctly in advance for arbitrarily long future intervals. And the applicability was known in advance to begin with.
Obviously, you're completely wrong.
Applying simplistic models to real life incurs a penalty. The affected scale multiplies with that penalty. When dealing with things affecting humanity as a whole, that makes careless over-generalizations a serious hazard.
A PhD is merely intended to show your ability to do research-level science. It doesn't show you know independently what to research, let alone why.
You confuse your ability to solve riddles competition-style with the answer to why you should do that in the first place.
Those competitions get set up because some people understand the importance of mathematical knowledge and want their names attached to advances in it, even if they can't do the work themselves.
Clearly, it would be far better to make the public understand how the world, and society in particular, actually works. Only, those with the money profit from that not happening.
Competitions are a way to motivate people. What do you believe, why they get set up in the first place? Because rich people have fun seeing you run in circles?
Competition for tenure and publishing metrics has been detrimental to science in general.
Your idea of life being about grabbing whatever comes your way and consuming it first says a lot about you, but not about life.
What do you suppose happens in a society where the constituents of that society "have nothing to contribute"? Your habit of over-simplification will come to bite you.
The point isn't some people not understanding whatever stuff with limited effects, it's no people understanding anything important.
Mathematics is about describing fundamental reality, so you can change it. When corporations own it exclusively, they can do whatever they want with it.
Being able to program means in particular, you can read those programs and understand what they do.
What happens when you don't understand them anymore?
Living in a reality where everything is a black box, doing its thing as if by magic, leaves you in a position devoid of control. The objects upholding your life are incomprehensible to you, you cannot change them or even only reliably exchange them with alternatives.
Mathematics goes into Physics, into Chemistry, molecular Biology and so on. It "goes" there by mathematicians talking with people there and exchanging ideas about what and how to model it.
Imagine all that getting privatized, walled into a corporate garden, accessible via payment only, similar to academic journals. Thought on demand.
How long does a society like that last?
Mathematics is humanity's current best approximation to a universal language, capable of expressing conscious thought precisely.
It's a "programming language for the human brain" that lets you describe reality exactly and thereby make predictions about it.
Without people (humans) knowing and understanding it, society is incapable of grasping reality in any meaningful way, unable to shape it in order to achieve a better tomorrow.
Most never realize that, because society is compartmentalized to the point of people never witnessing how it actually works under the hood. "Experts" do things for you that you never heard of, but that your very life depends upon.
While the majority of people thus lives a kind of "simulated" reality, the mechanisms underpinning that cushioned fantasy land aren't infallible. You cannot uphold an economy nor even a social structure without understanding and modeling it to a sufficient degree.
What the vast majority employs as "rational thought" isn't sufficient.
Mathematics represents the rational skeleton that upholds and stabilizes our vague, formless but far more common belief-based thinking.
Without it, losing it from neglect, we would collapse back into a pre-rational state of fantastical, wishful thinking.
Pretty much exemplified by large parts of US society already, but there is no bottom otherwise keeping society from collapse.
The difficulty with human abilities in vision, locomotion and particularly coordination and manipulation is due to their arithmetic complexity being high. Modern deep learning solves that, LLMs provide the "interface" for planned action.
From the outside, this process of "solving" perhaps looks like "robots stumble around haplessly". But it's just the same as with mathematicians in the intellectual realm: when the level of ability surpasses that of humans, it appears as a "sudden event" to outsiders, having occurred far faster than anticipated.
There are no "safe havens".
The same goes for self-driving cars. It's a exponential, hockey-stick curve that at some point crosses the level of human ability. There is nothing "linear" about it and your suggestion of parallels to former experience is wildly misguided.
People fail to notice, most jobs are less complicated than math and programming. The "obstacles" there are of the kind of "we always did it this way", but that's no real "moat"?
The bubble regarding the big AI firms may well collapse, but the assumption, that was somehow improving the situation is far-fetched.
People automated out of a job will either compete with those in other jobs or be dependent on support. Either way, salaries will fall across the board and prices rise. At an ever accelerating pace.
Civilizational collapse occurs when society runs afoul of its basic contract and cannot provide its foundational services anymore. That can mean starvation, it also is given e.g. in the situation of elites running low on trust. Leading to social unrest spinning out of control, or former allies refusing to play along with political shenanigans.
In order to evade catastrophic civilizational collapse, you need viable and timely avenues for course-correction or adaptation. Those are presently being blocked by the very elites profiting from the system they bleed dry.
Present levels of environmental degradation due to human actions far exceed Earth's capacity to self-heal.
People struggle with judging that, after all, at best you get a bunch of numbers and the claim, they would show this (or not). Without actual scientific background, what are you supposed to do?
Human society is based on trust. You depend on "experts" on a given subject to give truthful accounts of things. When you don't have that, society breaks down sooner or later: nobody adapts anymore to reality.
That's where we're at.
On the level of society, it's a catastrophic maladaptation.
The problem for normal people is to discern between "fearmongering" and honest warnings by competent people who actually know and understand the situation.
Societal collapse has happened before, many times actually (but usually with great spans of time between them). Western culture doesn't particularly like to speak about it, lest people get the idea, such cataclysm might repeat.
A society doesn't exist after it collapses, so "reporting" on it is usually rather scant and framed from the view of those left to talk about it (often not many).
Consequently, historians struggle with pinpointing the reasons for those collapses. People often had no clue themselves and didn't see it coming. Complexity theory is a rather new development.
The state you proclaim to be happy with is one of irresponsible dependency. A retreat to self-infantilization.
People fundamentally misunderstand the nature of mathematics: it's not "flat" like most of common people's daily pursuits. It consists of building upwards, on top of previous concepts.
In other words, AI is like an oracle: it can tell you all kinds of stuff, but since you probably don't understand, you won't act properly.
Complex systems can be interpreted as trajectories in high dimensional spaces. When a complex system is pushed out of equilibrium too far, it "runs up against its constraints", the borders of the space it can operate in.
It follows those towards edges and along those finally into corners (so to speak), reducing the degrees of freedom along the way. "Being cornered" is an accurate visualization of a complex system out of options: you have nowhere to go.
Our society is such a cornered complex system. "Crises" are themselves symptoms of reduced resilience: the system cannot evade them. They compound, eventually overwhelming the coping abilities, leading to catastrophic break down of entire subsystems and further domino effects.
The same observation is correct for our natural environment, whether you look at biodiversity, climate or other pollution-induced stressors.
So no, it's not "the human condition". It's the end-state of a prolonged lack of course-correction.
There are billions of real-life humans already there with you. Why do you need different ones exactly?
I presume, you don't like those already around. Fair point, they have many flaws for sure.
But that's the reason you interact with them in the first place? To learn and make not only other's flaws go away, but also your own?
> think AI makes you super hacker? think again: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 ["Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity"]
> https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...
> consider that the infrastructure for AI is economically unsustainable; when the bubble bursts, and it will, we will suddenly be left with millions of people thoroughly deskilled who will be useless. lots of reeducation needed, and lots of people will just be left behind.
> consider that it is controlled by only a minority of very wealthy individuals; with it, they have unprecedented control over human thought through manipulation of information, and control over what information is presented through filtering (what they call training).
> AI is a threat to the health and democracy of our entire world.
> libreboot will not facilitate its use. AI is the most dangerous technology ever invented by human beings.
...
They have plenty of reasons not to.
When you talk with machines, you "outsource" that central human society-building element.
But machines never socialize back in any meaningful way. You gradually lose yourself.
You have to actively design society to accommodate for the dangers it poses.
Of course everybody should "learn to use AI", but the real questions here are wildly different: can everybody use AI? Do the big US companies succeed in capturing the system, effectively shutting out every competitor and how do you imagine to benefit from that? Etc.
Mathematicians are in the same boat as Silicon Valley programmers in the end: AI is doing their job better than them and cheaper. Other professions will join shortly.
The question then becomes, what do humans do? Resigning to die quietly is hardly the most favorable option?
Just because somebody else can do something better than you ever could doesn't make doing it superfluous. There is more to mathematics and software engineering than finding proofs and algorithms.
Weirdly, there is some kind of power play happening with OS UI: "MBA finally in position of influence wants to force their taste on everybody" appears to be a thing.
It doesn't help you that AI understands it, when you don't. You are the one getting screwed over by others who understand statistics better than you do.
When you're rich enough, you can pay others (or AI) to protect you. But then you're dependent upon them.
So, under a transactional model of social relationships, you are in an arms race over raw intelligence and competency/data. With only one winner, who takes all in the end.
Logically, most people have already lost in that game, so why keep playing that nonsense?
Ironically, that has been that way for most people since forever.
Comparing with the situation in programming, where code evaluation (obviously analogous to "understanding") is that bottleneck now, should get people the idea of being in the same boat.
That's what I'm talking about: people have no clue, but presume they did anyway.
Look at who actually benefits from Trumpism.
Pinning it on this or that billionaire is simplistic at best. You have to actually look at what's happening on the right, not just parrot tropes.
The really weird thing is, how people/journalists don't seem to untangle who's behind them. Or what their actual game is.
The perceived tail is wagging with the dog and the echo chamber on the left believes it to be just another craziness.
It's a luxury when nobody takes you seriously, you get away with the most incredible stuff.