3 ms·

But this is a good thing for egalitarians. It offsets one of the most unfair aspects of the knowledge economy: that some people get to have much more fulfilling

But this is a good thing for egalitarians. It offsets one of the most unfair aspects of the knowledge economy: that some people get to have much more fulfilling and remunerative careers than average people because they were lucky enough to be born smart.

PorciiVorbesc 5d ago
It's actually the opposite. People who are "born smart", will leverage AI to get more knowledgeable even faster, use it to learn new things faster, use it to churn through data to find patterns and opportunities, and use it to do labor for them, so they can make even more money than those not born smart, who will just use AI to ask it what's 3x3 and if the earth is flat.
- kelseyfrog 5d ago
  It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
  - whattheheckheck 5d ago
    And distribution and will to take bioenhancements is equal across all intelligences?
    - kelseyfrog 5d ago
      That is the null hypothesis, yes. Do you have evidence otherwise?
      - the_real_cher 5d ago
        A good portion of people hate A.I. and won't even use it...they won't use a computer program to enhance their intellience, much less taking a pill...
        kelseyfrog 5d ago
        This is an inference, not evidence. It doesn't meet my epistemic standard necessary to reject the null hypothesis.
  - PorciiVorbesc 5d ago
    If only popping pills were the easy hack to people getting smarter. That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.
- toasty228 5d ago
  Inequalities have been growing for a while now, either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works, probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
  - PorciiVorbesc 5d ago
    >Inequalities have been growing for a while now I never said it hasn't. >either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works How do you think I think it works? > probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else Please, explain what you think my take is so that I can counter it. Because i feel like you missed my point entirely and are going on tangents parallel to what I said.

PorciiVorbesc 5d ago

It's actually the opposite. People who are "born smart", will leverage AI to get more knowledgeable even faster, use it to learn new things faster, use it to churn through data to find patterns and opportunities, and use it to do labor for them, so they can make even more money than those not born smart, who will just use AI to ask it what's 3x3 and if the earth is flat.

kelseyfrog 5d ago
It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
- whattheheckheck 5d ago
  And distribution and will to take bioenhancements is equal across all intelligences?
  - kelseyfrog 5d ago
    That is the null hypothesis, yes. Do you have evidence otherwise?
    - the_real_cher 5d ago
      A good portion of people hate A.I. and won't even use it...they won't use a computer program to enhance their intellience, much less taking a pill...
      - kelseyfrog 5d ago
        This is an inference, not evidence. It doesn't meet my epistemic standard necessary to reject the null hypothesis.
- PorciiVorbesc 5d ago
  If only popping pills were the easy hack to people getting smarter. That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.
toasty228 5d ago
Inequalities have been growing for a while now, either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works, probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
- PorciiVorbesc 5d ago
  >Inequalities have been growing for a while now I never said it hasn't. >either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works How do you think I think it works? > probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else Please, explain what you think my take is so that I can counter it. Because i feel like you missed my point entirely and are going on tangents parallel to what I said.