3 ms·

I think the fundamental question to be answered is "Will humans be needed to move society forward in the future?" People stand behind "Sure, AIs can write emai

I think the fundamental question to be answered is "Will humans be needed to move society forward in the future?" People stand behind "Sure, AIs can write emails, but they won't know what to write emails about". But to me that doesn't make sense. The holy grail of AI, what we are racing towards at a breakneck pace, what every company really wants, is the AI that knows what to write the email about... OpenAI, Meta, Google, homebrew. None of them are trying to build a calculator. They are all trying to build a calculator user. It's a very big difference and their progress has been nothing short of remarkable and unexpectedly fast.

kiba 3y ago
Are we looking to create AI agents? Citizens, not slaves?
danpalmer 3y ago
Even then, I don't think that changes many or any of the arguments. Perhaps you could drop the maths, but people still need to speak to each other, will probably still write to each other, will probably still write to persuade or describe even if it's just for pleasure. People will still want to know how the world works, we should definitely still learn from our history. As I said, the focus on why we're learning may change, and the testing may change, but I don't think that just because there are no jobs that require a human to write an email means we won't teach kids to write.