alt Hacker NewsYes. 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.
Replies
>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.
Not sure I follow, what are you doing with these philosopher kings after you mint them?
We should be (and kind of are) doing that with all kids really. I think you've just reinvented the boarding school.
You should read 'Anathem' by Neal Stephenson, which goes into great deal about this kind of establishment.