[EA-3167]

There’s a deeply flawed hidden assumption here, which is that the individual in question is the only possible source for the relevant information that the AI can harvest. In the real world that absurdly rare, original thought is rare because we’re in the mix with billions of others.

Scientists who hold back publishing breakthroughs have not guaranteed that they will be the sole discoverer, just that someone else will inevitably be credited when they reach the same conclusions.

[red-iron-pine]

the untold billions don't matter -- the AI can sift through those. social media already exists to do that, and LLMs have the luxury of often having the chaff separate from the wheat ahead of time.

science is not inevitable, and there is no telling people will reach the same conclusions in a reasonable time frame.