What do you think caused you to stop caring as much? I’ve been becoming more aware of my finitude recently for a variety of reasons relating to middle-age and having kids. A side effect of that is definitely caring less about lots of things in order to focus on others. But I have an internal battle going on with the part of me that says I should still be ambitious and make a dent in the world.
A common error in historical thinking tends to see human tools essentially as a positive linear plot between time and progress. But these tools until AI had the common property of being enhancing of human cognition, because they couldn't do the thinking _for you_. AI can do just that, and for all the benefit it brings, seeing it simply as the next step in the "natural evolution of human tools" is alarmingly disarming coming from frontier thinkers.
> these tools until AI had the common property of being enhancing of human cognition, because they couldn't do the thinking for you
I have a different take, centered around this idea: Not everyone was into thinking about everything all the time even before AI. I'd say most people most of the time outsourced actual thinking to someone else.
1) Reading non-fiction books:
Not all books, even the non-fiction ones, necessarily require any thinking by the reader. A book that narrates history, for example, requires much less thinking than something like "The Road to Reality" or "Godel Escher Bach."
Most of us outsourced the thinking and historical method to the authors of the history book and just passively consumed some facts or factoids. Some of us memorize and remember these factoids well, but that's not thinking, just knowledge storage.
Philosophically, what's the difference between consuming books this way and reading an LLM's output?
2) Reading research papers:
Most people don't read any research papers at all. No thinking there.
Most people don't head to some forum to ask about latest research either.
Also, researchers in most fields don't come out and do outreach regularly.
Indeed, an LLM may actually be the only pathway for a lot of people to get at least _some_ knowledge and awareness about latest research.
Those of us in scientific, engineering, humanities, healthcare fields may read some to many papers.
But only a small subset reads very critically, looking for data errors, inconsistencies, etc.
For most of us, the knowledge and techniques may be beyond our current understanding and possibly without any interest in understanding them in future either.
Most of us are just interested in the observations or conclusions or applications. Those may involve some thinking but also may not involve any thinking, just blind acceptance of the paper's claims and possible applications.
3) Coding:
Again, deep thinking is only done by a small set of programmers. Like the ones who write kernels, compilers, distributed algorithms, complex libraries.
But most are just passive consumers who read some examples online or ask stackoverflow or reddit for direct answers.
Some even outsource all their coding entirely to gig sites. Not much thinking there except pricing and scheduling.
What's the difference between that and asking an LLM or copying an LLM's answers? At least, the LLMs patiently explain their code, unlike salty SO users!
----
IMO, most people weren't doing much thinking even pre-AI.
Post-AI, it's true that some people who did do some thinking may reduce it.
But it's equally true that those people who weren't doing much thinking due to access or language barriers can actually start doing some thinking now with the help of AI.
> I'd say most people most of the time outsourced actual thinking to someone else.
Someone else being human, until now. That may change. That's the whole point!
But I concur with your general point on the upstream production of thinking and knowledge. Indeed, such elite thinkers are those in economic history referred to as the "upper-tail human capital". Terence Tao being one of them giving license to the kind of thinking that accepts AI as a simple tool that is not fundamentally breaking our relationship with technology is what exactly I am protesting.
> But it's equally true that those people who weren't doing much thinking due to access or language barriers can actually start doing some thinking now with the help of AI.
If only we keep thinking that thinking is a comparative advantage of our species, I suppose!
The studios behind Project Hail Mary have documented histories of fake online promotion and the industry to do it again is booming. I don't have proof that Amazon MGM Studios is astroturfing HN or Reddit about Project Hail Mary. What I do have is a chain of documented facts that should make anyone reading enthusiastic comments about this film pause and consider the source...
Project Hail Mary is produced by Amazon MGM Studios and distributed internationally by Sony Pictures. The film cost $200 million to produce and needs roughly $500 million to break even. Amazon MGM has had a string of expensive flops (Crime 101, Melania, After the Hunt), and there was reported internal pressure for this film to change the narrative.
Amazon MGM's Head of Global Marketing is Sue Kroll, who spent 24 years at Warner Bros. serving as President of Worldwide Marketing and Distribution. Her deputy for international marketing, Charlie Coleman, also came from Warner Bros. Awards head Juli Goodwin spent nearly 20 years at Warner Bros.
This matters because Warner Bros Home Entertainment was caught by the FTC in 2016 paying YouTube influencers (including PewDiePie) thousands of dollars through ad agency Plaid Social Labs. Warner Bros settled with the FTC.
Also lets not forget Sony Pictures invented a fake movie critic in 2001, and around the same time, were caught using employees posing as moviegoers in TV commercials for The Patriot. Sony at the end paid $326,000 to Connecticut's AG and $1.5 million in a class-action settlement...
The industry to do this on Reddit and other public forums is openly thriving. There are companies that will, right now, post on Reddit and HN? as "organic users" for paying clients. They describe these services on their own websites:
• Onemotion Group (onemotion.group) openly advertises "real-looking posts, comments, and threads that catch on" with a focus on "organic posts, community replies, and making threads spread naturally."
• Single Grain (singlegrain.com/agency/reddit-marketing-agency) sells "conversation monitoring," "question response systems," and "thoughtful comments and contributions that establish your brand as a helpful community member."
• OutreachBloom describes monitoring subreddits and responding with "helpful" answers using pre-warmed accounts with built-up karma.
Specially an agency called Iron Roots (ironrootsinc.com) lists both Amazon Studios and Warner Bros. as clients...
Describes services including "engaging communities with compelling content and fostering active, loyal brand advocates across platforms."
I am not claiming Project Hail Mary is being astroturfed. I am pointing out:
1. Both studios behind this film (Amazon MGM and Sony) have documented, FTC-adjudicated histories of deceptive online promotion.
2. The marketing leadership at Amazon MGM comes directly from Warner Bros., where this behavior was institutionally tolerated.
3. An entire commercial industry exists to post as organic users on Reddit, HN, and forums, some of these agencies list Amazon Studios as a client.
4. The financial incentive is massive: a $200M film from a studio desperate to prove its theatrical strategy works.
5. The penalties when caught have been trivial relative to marketing budgets ($326K for Sony, consent decree for Warner Bros.), and there is no ongoing enforcement mechanism for community forum manipulation.
When someone on HN or Reddit posts an enthusiastic take about a major studio release, the question is not whether astroturfing happens. We know it does, the companies that do it have websites. The question is whether you can tell the difference between a genuine fan and a paid account?
I'm gonna just take a shortcut, and watch the movie, then make up my mind. Astroturfing or not, making up your own mind is part of the fun of being alive. Then "a genuine fan or a paid account" doesn't even matter anyway, because they're both as important when you make up your own mind.
Speaking about that, have you seen the movie yourself?
I work in an R&D team as research scientist/engineer.
Cursor and Claude Code have undoubtedly accelerated certain aspects of my technical execution. In particular, root causing difficult bugs in a complicated codebase has been accelerated through the ability to generate throwaway targeted logging code and just generally having an assistant that can help me navigate and understand complex code.
However, overall I would say that AI coding tools have made my job harder in two other ways:
1. There’s an increased volume of code that requires more thorough review and/or testing or is just generally not in keeping with the overall repo design.
2. The cost is lowered for prototyping ideas so the competitive aspect of deciding what to build or which experiment to run has ramped up. I basically need to think faster and with more clarity to perform the same as I did before because the friction of implementation time has been drastically reduced.
I agree with you. I try to remember though that this is just the same situation that artists, musicians and (more recently) writers have been in for a long time. Unless you’re one of a very lucky few you’ll only get fulfillment in those pursuits if you enjoy the process rather than the output since it’s hard to get money or recognition for output anymore. Pure coding and lots of areas of code problem solving are going to end up in the same position.
You made me order The Cuckoo's Egg. Luis Alvarez is my scientific hero since I read his memoir last year. Truly underappreciated in the pop-sci community.
I’m not convinced that useful mathematical foundations will be found anytime soon. Neural nets exist because we want to make decisions in a world that is so noisy, complex and chaotic that we can’t satisfy the requirements of more rigorous analytical frameworks. It seems to me that the irreducible complexity is in the real world, not the neural networks.
Never underestimate the power of mathematics. On the other hand, a lot of mathematical breakthroughs in the history are not found by people doing mathematics but in physics and engineering. Calculus, statistics, information theory, etc.
Even for computer science, take a look at Turing Award from 1966 [0], we will see how short sighted we are if we only follow the trend. Time will tell and smart people will find new path.
I have a background in mathematics, I believe in mathematics, but I don't believe in blind faith. Physics gave us statistical mechanics precisely because it's impossible to measure, model and predict the behavior of every individual particle in real-world systems. My gut feeling is that a mathematical theory of LLMs is more likely to look like statistical mechanics than something that tames chaos. That certainly doesn't mean that theory wont't open new doors though that we haven't currently thought of.
reply