[kkfx]

Honestly? Well, we entering an era (beside possible global war, famine, ... etc) where knowledge application will be more and more automated, while knowledge creation will be human.

Meaning we need less strong arms and more strong brains. Not something that new anyway, the "information age" already makes clear intelligent people could do pretty anything they want to do, while less intelligent are constrained in what they can actually do even if they want.

Experience means essentially automation in the chapter terms, something we have already "solved" could be automated by some machine. To solve new things we need humans. That's is.

Small potatoes new knowledge, meaning knowledge emerging merely crossing per-existing knowledge like from a literature review paper could be a machine game, it's not really creation of new knowledge in the end.

BUT the real point is another: who own the model? LLMs state a clear thing, we need open knowledge just to train them, copyright can't be sustained anymore. But once a model is created who own it? Because the current model is dramatically dangerous since training is expensive and not much exiting, so while it could be a community procedure in practice is a giant-led process, and the giant own the result while harvesting anything from anyone. The effect implied by such evolution are much more startling then the mere automation risk in Lisanne Bainbridge terms https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica... or short/mid term job losses.