5 ms·

> You are still thinking that the amount of "knowledge" or "skill" that a human can hold is fixed, which is simply wrong I don't think it is, or maybe we're th

> You are still thinking that the amount of "knowledge" or "skill" that a human can hold is fixed, which is simply wrong I don't think it is, or maybe we're thinking of this differently. The quantity of knowledge is not fixed, it's infinite. The kind of knowledge IS fixed - this is your potential. I can learn to read, and to write, and to engineer. But I can't learn how to make a quantum computer, I simply don't have that potential. But that's me. It varies from person to person, along a bell curve in my mind. > Please seriously ponder this question as to why, as it has not happened before in human history when other advances came Because the average potential is relatively high, and we already got the low hanging fruit out of the way. For the vast, vast majority of human history, the average person could not read or write - they didn't need to. Eventually they did, but IMO the average human definitely has the potential to read and write, and I was proven right by that. Some humans did not. We may consider them disabled. And yes, they were fucked and are fucked. I mentioned bandaids earlier, we provide help to these people. But the underlying problem exists, those that cannot read or write pretty much can't work any job, so they're fucked. 100 years ago they could be fine. When other advancements came, we pushed human jobs up the bell curve of potential, and it was fine because there was SO much potential left. But do you, honestly, think the average person can be an astrophysicist? If you answer no, as I would, then clearly there is a tipping point. We're not there yet, the average person does not need to be an astrophysicist. But they do need to graduate college, and some percentage of people can't, and they're simply fucked in our current society.

satvikpendem 2y ago
> But do you, honestly, think the average person can be an astrophysicist? Of course. The difference is the level of education. Otherwise, do you really believe that those, all across the world, become astrophysicists? Everyone has the capacity to change, grow, and become more than they once were.
- consteval 2y ago
  I just disagree. I think for me personally, even given an infinite amount of time and money there's many problems I could never solve because my brain is not capable. So, to me, there is an upper limit, which is all I'm really arguing. Where, exactly, the limit is, is a different question. I know this applies to other people too because I've personally met people who can't read and never will. I've met people who couldn't graduate high school, and not from a lack of trying, and everyone in between. Based on that, and my own limits, I'm concluding there are limits to how "smart" someone can get and it varies. For me personally, I felt as though if I continued my education higher I would really be pushing it.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    > Based on that, and my own limits, I'm concluding there are limits to how "smart" someone can get and it varies. Perhaps you should speak for yourself then. It is not useful to extrapolate your experiences onto everyone else as it's comparable to someone with an IQ of 50 thinking everyone else is the same, not realizing that others might be much more intelligent than them. I simply do not agree that we have reached anywhere near the limit of human potential yet, as evidences by thousands of years of adaptation of work in the face of new technology that hunter gatherers could not have dreamed of, yet we are anatomically identical to them. To think that only today are we reaching the limits is a prime example of recency bias; it was famously said that in the early 1900s that everything that could've been invented had already been.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - consteval 2y ago
      > Perhaps you should speak for yourself then I feel I don't need to speak for myself when I say something so obvious as "not everyone can be an astrophysicist" Rather, perhaps you should think more reasonably of yourself? I admire the confidence to believe you can truly do anything, but I'm definitely more confident in saying, no, you can't.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        My point is not that everyone can become a astrophysicist, it is that there isn't some terminal point in the near future where people simply can't or won't work anymore, or that you'll eventually need a masters degree to even find a job, which you seem to be saying. I simply cannot believe that to be the case when people have been working just fine for thousands of years, and if it is the case that most employers ask for masters degrees, eventually they won't find enough people to work and they'll change the requirements, the problem fixes itself, and it's not like there aren't plenty of people doing jobs even today that don't require degrees, they're not doomed to poverty as you say. It just sounds like what people fearmonger about AI taking everyone's jobs. And again, extrapolating your experiences onto everyone else is not useful, as you're making it seem like everyone is doomed and will be poor. I am honestly not sure why you're continuing this chain of thought so I don't think I'll respond further, it's not a productive argument anymore.

satvikpendem 2y ago

> But do you, honestly, think the average person can be an astrophysicist? Of course. The difference is the level of education. Otherwise, do you really believe that those, all across the world, become astrophysicists? Everyone has the capacity to change, grow, and become more than they once were.

consteval 2y ago
I just disagree. I think for me personally, even given an infinite amount of time and money there's many problems I could never solve because my brain is not capable. So, to me, there is an upper limit, which is all I'm really arguing. Where, exactly, the limit is, is a different question. I know this applies to other people too because I've personally met people who can't read and never will. I've met people who couldn't graduate high school, and not from a lack of trying, and everyone in between. Based on that, and my own limits, I'm concluding there are limits to how "smart" someone can get and it varies. For me personally, I felt as though if I continued my education higher I would really be pushing it.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  > Based on that, and my own limits, I'm concluding there are limits to how "smart" someone can get and it varies. Perhaps you should speak for yourself then. It is not useful to extrapolate your experiences onto everyone else as it's comparable to someone with an IQ of 50 thinking everyone else is the same, not realizing that others might be much more intelligent than them. I simply do not agree that we have reached anywhere near the limit of human potential yet, as evidences by thousands of years of adaptation of work in the face of new technology that hunter gatherers could not have dreamed of, yet we are anatomically identical to them. To think that only today are we reaching the limits is a prime example of recency bias; it was famously said that in the early 1900s that everything that could've been invented had already been.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Perhaps you should speak for yourself then I feel I don't need to speak for myself when I say something so obvious as "not everyone can be an astrophysicist" Rather, perhaps you should think more reasonably of yourself? I admire the confidence to believe you can truly do anything, but I'm definitely more confident in saying, no, you can't.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      My point is not that everyone can become a astrophysicist, it is that there isn't some terminal point in the near future where people simply can't or won't work anymore, or that you'll eventually need a masters degree to even find a job, which you seem to be saying. I simply cannot believe that to be the case when people have been working just fine for thousands of years, and if it is the case that most employers ask for masters degrees, eventually they won't find enough people to work and they'll change the requirements, the problem fixes itself, and it's not like there aren't plenty of people doing jobs even today that don't require degrees, they're not doomed to poverty as you say. It just sounds like what people fearmonger about AI taking everyone's jobs. And again, extrapolating your experiences onto everyone else is not useful, as you're making it seem like everyone is doomed and will be poor. I am honestly not sure why you're continuing this chain of thought so I don't think I'll respond further, it's not a productive argument anymore.