3 ms·

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 ca

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.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I really, truly, don't understand how you don't see this. Because it's already been the trend and I've already explained multiple times why it hasn't been a problem yet. For the vast, vast, VAST majority of human history you could live simply by performing labor. This is no longer the case in modern societies. Only KNOWLEDGE jobs now provide, IMO, an adequate income. We have ALREADY left a lot of people behind. People who cannot read, or write, are completely fucked. We are LUCKY that most people are able to read and write. As time goes on and this trend continues and we continue to cut off the bottom X% of jobs, what happens to those people? Imagine a hypothetical secretary. This is all she is capable of doing, and she barely passed high school, and not from a lack of trying. Her job is then automated. What does she do? This isn't a hypothetical question - spell it out for me. There are no jobs below her. What does she do? To expand further, assuming some automate X removes the bottom Y percent of jobs, the lowest hanging of fruit, that means the jobs left MUST BE > Y. If someone can only do up to Y, then they cannot work a job. As Y approaches infinity, nobody on planet Earth will be able to work. You're able to work right now because you happen to be smart enough to perform the average jobs available. When some automation, AI or not, doesn't matter, eliminates the bottom 90% of knowledge jobs, only the top 10% will be left. You will not be able to work one of those jobs, because you aren't working one right now and I'm assuming you've already pushed your brain to its limits. If you haven't, you're leaving money on the table, and you should be a rocket scientist.

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.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I really, truly, don't understand how you don't see this. Because it's already been the trend and I've already explained multiple times why it hasn't been a problem yet. For the vast, vast, VAST majority of human history you could live simply by performing labor. This is no longer the case in modern societies. Only KNOWLEDGE jobs now provide, IMO, an adequate income. We have ALREADY left a lot of people behind. People who cannot read, or write, are completely fucked. We are LUCKY that most people are able to read and write. As time goes on and this trend continues and we continue to cut off the bottom X% of jobs, what happens to those people? Imagine a hypothetical secretary. This is all she is capable of doing, and she barely passed high school, and not from a lack of trying. Her job is then automated. What does she do? This isn't a hypothetical question - spell it out for me. There are no jobs below her. What does she do? To expand further, assuming some automate X removes the bottom Y percent of jobs, the lowest hanging of fruit, that means the jobs left MUST BE > Y. If someone can only do up to Y, then they cannot work a job. As Y approaches infinity, nobody on planet Earth will be able to work. You're able to work right now because you happen to be smart enough to perform the average jobs available. When some automation, AI or not, doesn't matter, eliminates the bottom 90% of knowledge jobs, only the top 10% will be left. You will not be able to work one of those jobs, because you aren't working one right now and I'm assuming you've already pushed your brain to its limits. If you haven't, you're leaving money on the table, and you should be a rocket scientist.