I mean, that's the only way I code. I don't use llm's to do my work for me. I'm perfectly capable of solving any sort of problem on my own, and then I'll understand it well enough to explain it to someone later.
I’ve just started a new job and my first month has been coming to terms with a vibe coded codebase. Nobody really understands it. I think that people who have the skills to really know what is there and how it all fits together will be the most valuable workers in future.
My ex business partner said “AI won’t take your job, but the person who uses it will”. I don’t agree. The person who isn’t reliant on AI is the one you should really be afraid of.
Well this has been essentially the plan since the 70's. The 60's scared the bejeezus out of the ruling class and they began taking steps to bring the people to heel from the 70's onward. In the words of Ronald Reagan's education advisor, Roger Freeman: "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. … That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”
I interact with people who seem about as smart as me fairly often- my college professors for example. And, I certainly have been in many situations where my domain knowledge was vastly less than some other person with real expertise. But I have a hard time thinking of a time when I thought someone else was significantly smarter than me. Probably, that's an example of exactly what the article is talking about- maybe I've met those people but failed to recognize them. They certainly must be out there (unless i am the smartest person in the world, in which case we're all in serious trouble).
Similar to your observation - I can think of at least one person who is definetly a lot smarter than than me, and yeah, I’m not sure I could tell you why exactly.
Part of it looks like focus, I think I have a broader skill set than they do. But I don’t know that I could like rank a set of people smarter than me.
A few signs: they know what your about to say and give you refutations to your argument before you voice them. Or you find they tend to block your argumentation and you don't quite know how to respond. Could be domain expertise though.
Or if it's a collaborative situation, they might propose an idea you are already kind of thinking about, but they do it faster and clearer.
Having proof on video of trump sexually assaulting a minor would still be significant, I think. Such footage probably exists and would make great leverage.
The Epstein files identify a pretty horrific incident involving Trump and a 14 year old girl, but it doesn't seem to have changed much so far. I suppose a video would be more compelling, but of course there'd be denials saying it was AI, etc.
I think that's their go to for damage control. I specifically remember in 2019 when Epstein was arrested, the MSM was running parallel stories talking about the rise of deep fakes. They were already setting the stage in case the kompromat was released. A few months ago with "Obama getting arrested" posted on Trump's account, I think this is a strategic reference to deep fakes. They'll say "that's not trump blowing Clinton, it's a deep fake like I posted of Obama, silly!"
It's funny that in movies like the matrix they imagine that humanity would fight back against the machines. In reality the first thing ai will do, which it has already done, is capture our governments through the application of money, and then the humans would first have to defeat their own institutions before they can even begin to fight the machines. Neoliberalism is profoundly unable to deal with threats if the threats produce short term profits. That goes for housing shortages, global warming, health care costs, falling birth rates, across the board if it produces short term profits that can be used to bribe politicians its impossible to address. AI is no different.
Yeah at my last job at a larger organization they would occasionally get us all in the big auditorium and start showering us with this sort of language. I would excuse myself to use the restroom then go back to my desk and get some work done. Peace and quiet! Never got called out on it, they don't need me sitting there rolling my eyes and grimacing through the whole thing anyway.
Personally I very much doubt that any civilization would build Dyson spheres in their naive spherical shell form, because the gravitational field inside a hollow shell is zero and therefore nothing would stick to the inner surface and would instead drift towards the host star. (Proved by sir Issac newton)
But more than that- the concept of the sphere is making a ton of hidden assumptions about the desirability of always wanting more and more space and energy which are probably a side effect of the kind of authoritarian power structures that rule most humans currently. But that may not be common.
reply