To put it differently, if you have some idealized model in front of you that can do anything a team of humans can do, what do you say to it? It's still just a model that takes an input and provides an output.

At the end of the day, even if they are some insane oracle (pun intended), they're still bounded by training data and how it relates to the real world. Even if they're a near perfect tool, we are still the interface between them and our lived experience. If that stops being the case then why do we care about the output?

This assumes it doesn't graduate to just killing all of us and doing it's own thing, but within this paradigm it doesn't really have goals.

Big wrapping operations like sums, integrals, and matrices, then what's nearby them, give you a very good idea of where things are going context wise.

These niche hobby products are usually reasonably safe because they rely on community network effects, becoming the darling of a random subreddit or discord group and people aren't going to save $20 to get some device of dubious origin.

I wouldn't call it the most censored platform, but it still has vestiges of its old self, particularly with respect to philosophy and politics.

If we're smart about this, maybe it means we get to do novel work a little more frequently. That said, I fear that a lot of people don't look at every single LLM output and think "Eh it's workable but it doesn't spark joy" and anyone who doesn't think that is likely going to be seeing their QOL decreasing. At that point your time might be better spent learning how to make Molotovs.

>Sell an expensive, recurring B2B service into your network, fulfill it with technical leverage, then productize it into software once you've done the same work five times.

Yeah, good fucking work, nobody's ever thought of that. It's obvious why it picked that though, every 3rd post on this forum and half of the rest of the internet is singing the praises of be-your-own-boss SaaS passive income and it turns out that if you convolve all of that into a black box this is what you're gonna get.

All that said, people still learn and do manual math at all levels in order to advance the field even though calculators and python notebooks exist.

I think people get too wrapped up in LLMs being the entirety of the future when the LLMs themselves are entirely a product of the past. An LLM is less a thinking machine than a lossy JPEG for language and to an extent, knowledge represented in language. As such, if you want to expand the field and move into the future you aren't going to rely solely on an algorithm that reverts to the mean.

Splitting is less good, that involves weaving between cars at speed and is actually dangerous.

Some of the worst accidents are rear endings where drivers (not paying attention) just run you over while stopped in traffic.

This is offset by accidents where people do the stuff you're worried about but when it's practiced correctly that's not as big of a risk and generally leads to less catastrophic accidents than rear endings.

It's also just kinda dumb to force a class of vehicle that can get out of traffic jams to instead sit in them