Alternative proposal: Since no one reasonable actually wants a future where humans are irrelevant - including the people in power who generally like being relevant - we could remember that we’re thinking beings with agency and just decide not to use AI to replace ourselves.

We made a new tool. Using the tool for some things makes life better. Using the tool too much would make life worse. So let’s not do that!

Sometimes I wonder how many people miss doing math by hand instead of using a calculator.

Historically, improvements in tech allowed us to focus on higher level reasoning. For example, spend more time on equations instead of calculations.

So if AI can replace all your reasoning, maybe its time to level up?

This is a very negative take. We didn’t stop learning arithmetics after the invention of the calculator.

I wonder if feeling and intuition will become the most prized, once explaining and sophistry toward any conclusion becomes something any bot can do...?

Right now, we think of feeling as second class, but I wonder if that's more because we have let it go feral, and left it unprotected from predatory actors and systems -- advertising, consumerism, even politics. We don't protect our minds from attacks on our feeling systems (e.g., we don't cover therapy as a public health measure), and so maybe we've just gotten used to giving a pretty poor assessment of its capacity.

If we institutionalized protection of intuition like we protect our ability to reason, maybe we would think more highly of that part of ourselves...

Everyone is always so negative. Cheer up a bit. The "bicycle of the mind" is now the "dirtbike of the mind"... have fun, pop a wheelie.

Daily front page psyop telling you to accept that token predictors are ASI and humans are obsolete, despite the fact that if they were ASI nobody would ever need to write a blog post convincing you of it

Thinking is already a hobby and most of people have been refusing to participate for probably since the dawn of mankind.

Have you been around humans?

I feel using these tools make me think a lot actually. It's to the point that the more I'm digging a research or code subject, the answers are so dense that I sometimes need hours to get around why this or that (a good example is designing ML systems, losses, theoretical and statistical stuff).

It might not be deep thinking, but it's definitely like being back on a PhD with an always on advisor that splits your brains every few thoughts.

This is confusing. "Thinking" has been a hobby, a luxury reserved for the wealthy, for most of human history. "Thinking as a hobby" was the Renaissance — a large enough agricultural surplus enabled a small handful of people to spend most of their time just thinking.

i think (heh) it depends on what you call thinking. if it is what Deleuze calls 'substance based thinking', which is what the machine is trained on, then we will increasingly find that we are majorly outgunned. if not, then we will need to build another kind of machine before we are made fully redundant

despite what the proverbial 'they' would have you believe, there is not only one type of thought. perhaps this perceived redundancy will be the catalyst that helps us to transcend the self-destructive and limited patterns that have dominated post-enlightenment efforts. perhaps.