the issue is that there are no value adds from humans anymore if the LLM is smarter than everyone
The value adds (from the view of humans wanting it) come from:
1) a human understanding concept X & thus can communicate about X; or
2) finding alternate routes to X that make it easier for humans to get there.
(1) is human-centric & thus non-replaceable, since the requirement of a human is what gives it the value add.
(2) is similar to how there can be many paths to deriving the Pythagorean theorem. None of the existing paths devalue the others, but they each allow those with different perspectives to reach the same destination.
And why would a human be able to come up with a proof an LLM can't? I get your point but the new paths and perspectives could probably all be derived by prompting "prove xyz statement" a few times in fresh chats.
Good for you, but that's not a job, and no one is going to award you a PhD for doing that.
Moreover, that's precisely the kind of work that AIs can do. So why would anyone pay you to do that, whether or not you find it satisfying?
That's not an accurate representation of this conversation.
But the fact of the matter is that the purpose of my program and of research isn't to work on solved problems but to solve new ones. And the machine seems to be better than me in basically every way in this regard.
It's an interesting thought experiment: how many human lives would cost you one LLM?
Exactly. That's why people are upset, and why more people are going to be upset as AI subsumes more parts of society. The handbags are just an analogy.
I wouldn't say that independent human thought will become "extinct," but rather that it will be severely devalued. And I don't see any technical reason why AIs can't replace every aspect of human thought, including creativity.
> So weird that we in the tech industry are so willing to ruin humanity for the sake of a sick IPO.
Not all of us. But the people who are making the decisions about AI have their own set of values.