|
|
|
|
|
by jamiedumont
513 days ago
|
|
There was a time about ten years ago I worked with a few people who had climbed Everest (one multiple times) and a handful more that were due to in the next couple of years. We worked in a climbing shop, and the regulars were all experienced climbers, working only to save enough for the next expedition. The topic of oxygen had come up and almost everyone was all in favour of it until one guy explained he wouldn't be alive had he decided to use oxygen. He got cut off between two camps in bad weather, and were he relying on oxygen he would have likely run out; and subsequently passed out and died in the cold. As he was instead properly acclimated, he could ride out the storm as long as he stayed warm, which was relatively easy because he didn't need to worry about oxygen consumption. Whether his story was true or not, it highlighted that it might be better to "be more" than "have more". The idea has stuck with me since, and whenever I'm faced with the choice between a shortcut past problem using some external resource or taking the longer, slower route of learning it/training properly I always go for the latter. It's not sexy, but has served me pretty well. It's been an interesting thought-experiment these past few months as the talk around AI has become deafening. I know I'll be on the wrong side of history eventually, but I still prefer to "earn my turns" to borrow a metaphor from backcountry skiing. |
|