[sendes]

> We assert that artificial intelligence is a natural evolution of human tools.

While nowhere in the paper this is actually asserted but the abstract, a whiggish narrative of a genuinely unprecedented technology --such that it can replace and supersede human "labour" altogether (one is reminded of The Evolution of Human Science by Ted Chiang)-- sounds naive at best, dangerous at worst.

[jebarker]

I don’t see why “natural evolution of human tools” implies “such that it can replace and supersede human labor altogether”. Can you clarify?

[sendes]

A common error in historical thinking tends to see human tools essentially as a positive linear plot between time and progress. But these tools until AI had the common property of being enhancing of human cognition, because they couldn't do the thinking _for you_. AI can do just that, and for all the benefit it brings, seeing it simply as the next step in the "natural evolution of human tools" is alarmingly disarming coming from frontier thinkers.

[nutjob2]

* For certain speculative definitions of AI

[lovelearning]

> these tools until AI had the common property of being enhancing of human cognition, because they couldn't do the thinking for you

I have a different take, centered around this idea: Not everyone was into thinking about everything all the time even before AI. I'd say most people most of the time outsourced actual thinking to someone else.

1) Reading non-fiction books:

Not all books, even the non-fiction ones, necessarily require any thinking by the reader. A book that narrates history, for example, requires much less thinking than something like "The Road to Reality" or "Godel Escher Bach."

Most of us outsourced the thinking and historical method to the authors of the history book and just passively consumed some facts or factoids. Some of us memorize and remember these factoids well, but that's not thinking, just knowledge storage.

Philosophically, what's the difference between consuming books this way and reading an LLM's output?

2) Reading research papers:

Most people don't read any research papers at all. No thinking there. Most people don't head to some forum to ask about latest research either. Also, researchers in most fields don't come out and do outreach regularly.

Indeed, an LLM may actually be the only pathway for a lot of people to get at least _some_ knowledge and awareness about latest research.

Those of us in scientific, engineering, humanities, healthcare fields may read some to many papers. But only a small subset reads very critically, looking for data errors, inconsistencies, etc. For most of us, the knowledge and techniques may be beyond our current understanding and possibly without any interest in understanding them in future either.

Most of us are just interested in the observations or conclusions or applications. Those may involve some thinking but also may not involve any thinking, just blind acceptance of the paper's claims and possible applications.

3) Coding:

Again, deep thinking is only done by a small set of programmers. Like the ones who write kernels, compilers, distributed algorithms, complex libraries.

But most are just passive consumers who read some examples online or ask stackoverflow or reddit for direct answers. Some even outsource all their coding entirely to gig sites. Not much thinking there except pricing and scheduling. What's the difference between that and asking an LLM or copying an LLM's answers? At least, the LLMs patiently explain their code, unlike salty SO users!

----

IMO, most people weren't doing much thinking even pre-AI.

Post-AI, it's true that some people who did do some thinking may reduce it.

But it's equally true that those people who weren't doing much thinking due to access or language barriers can actually start doing some thinking now with the help of AI.

[sendes]

> I'd say most people most of the time outsourced actual thinking to someone else.

Someone else being human, until now. That may change. That's the whole point!

But I concur with your general point on the upstream production of thinking and knowledge. Indeed, such elite thinkers are those in economic history referred to as the "upper-tail human capital". Terence Tao being one of them giving license to the kind of thinking that accepts AI as a simple tool that is not fundamentally breaking our relationship with technology is what exactly I am protesting.

> But it's equally true that those people who weren't doing much thinking due to access or language barriers can actually start doing some thinking now with the help of AI.

If only we keep thinking that thinking is a comparative advantage of our species, I suppose!

[Zigurd]

I'm glad I can still count on HN to come across the correct use of a lesser known definition of a word.

[nutjob2]

> supersede human "labour" altogether

For certain types of labor this has always been the case.

The idea that AI will entirely replace all, or most, human labor makes no sense and is just AI hype.

Like all technology before it AI will improve most people's lives.

[palmotea]

> Like all technology before it AI will improve most people's lives.

1. Let's be clear: what you're describing is faith.

2. And what are you smoking to assert "all technology before ... AI [improved] most people's lives"?

[nutjob2]

> 1. Let's be clear: what you're describing is faith.

And what I am countering is not? You can easily argue technology generally improves lives. Is it optimal? Beyond abuse? No. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. Are we better of without it? No.

> 2. And what are you smoking to assert "all technology before ... AI [improved] most people's lives"?

OK social media is an unmitigated disaster, I'll give you that.

But, for example, nukes have given us the longest period of relative peace in history.

[palmotea]

>> 1. Let's be clear: what you're describing is faith.

> And what I am countering is not? You can easily argue technology generally improves lives. Is it optimal? Beyond abuse? No. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. Are we better of without it? No.

The faith part is assuming it will always turn out as well as it has in the past. But every technology is different, and the patterns of the last 100-200 years are not some fixed law.

Look at each technology and its characteristics with fresh eyes, and think of the consequences without that assumption. That's not faith.

> But, for example, nukes have given us the longest period of relative peace in history.

I think celebrating nuclear weapons is a bit premature. A non-zero chance of obliteration over a long enough period of time becomes a near-certainty.