[abixb]

Yes. I continue to believe that humans will still be the source of the vast majority of novel ideas, even as they increasingly use AI-related tools to accelerate their works.

One of the though experiments I ran with one of my friends during a recent conversation over drinks was this: raising a bunch of "control group" kids away from the screens and the algorithmic ocean of "normie-tier content," and in a very learner-friendly setting with hyper-strict control on the quality of media and source material they get access to, just like we've been doing it with frontier models. Think of it like a monastery but for kids, while teaching them all the latest advances in our understanding of reality through mathematics, engineering, computer science, deep learning, and whatnot.

What I'm getting at it is that we might still need super smart people to push the boundaries of knowledge while using super-advanced AI tools, and anyone who says AI will "completely replace" humans are just misguided. We will always need super smart people with largely unadulterated thinking.

[dmd]

You should read 'Anathem' by Neal Stephenson, which goes into great deal about this kind of establishment.

[abixb]

Thank you for the recommendation. I'm yet to checkout any of Neal Stephenson's works, which is real unfortunate.

[dmd]

I'd say Anathem is the best of the bunch, and has held up best over time.

[rhymeswithjazz]

I was reading their comment and was just about to suggest the same thing.

[munksbeer]

>We will always need super smart people with largely unadulterated thinking.

I don't see how you get to that conclusion. We're just atoms. We evolved over a long time and something selected for a particular configuration of atoms that does "something" (see neurons firing in a network) that then somehow produces what you call "novel ideas".

But if one particular set of atoms can do it, so can another. I don't see why we can't eventually invent/evolve/train a bunch of computer atoms to come up with more novel ideas that we can.

[moffkalast]

We should be (and kind of are) doing that with all kids really. I think you've just reinvented the boarding school.

[phoghed]

Not sure I follow, what are you doing with these philosopher kings after you mint them?

[abixb]

Well, the goal was to make them come up with cutting-edge theories and/or hypothesis to the most pressing problems facing humanity. Kids will naturally specialize (just like... MoE models?) as their find their groove while growing up, but the goal is to make sure highly gifted kids from diverse background get highest quality space to think without being moulded or "adulterated" by the noise of pop culture and "everyday" life.

[xp84]

> make sure highly gifted kids from diverse background

It would be ideal to get those gifted kids before they spend 5-6 years in the 'real world' with all the "Baby Shark," Roblox, and various other brainrot, but if you pick kids randomly from a very early age, most of them will probably not be all that gifted. Though I suppose maybe you could rely on genetic heritage (parents of very high IQ) and/or just do a large number of them and just assume you'll luck into enough geniuses to be worth your while.

[phoghed]

They’re going to be so mad when they graduate The Program and find out about Minecraft

[inanutshellus]

    > Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky?
    > I think so, Brain, but --
    > YES! Time to take over the world [utilizing these philosopher kings]!

To jump from one dated pop culture reference to another, it is a very Manchurian Candidate-esque plan. Not one without merit, but clearly a pessimistic take on the future of education for the masses.