Just because I utilize the services of others for some things does not mean that it should be expected I want to utilize the service of others for all things.

This is a preposterous generalization and exactly why I said the OP premise is laughable.

Further, you’ve shifted OP’s point from subjective enjoyment of an activity to getting “paid well” - this is an irrelevant tangent to whether “most” people in general would delegate work if they could.

Laughably narrow-minded projection of your own perspective on others.

I haven’t heard about this before this post, but if they’re starting a “Social Media but with AI” site in 2025, can’t help but feel like they’re cooked.

What if we take this perspective from “knowledge of news topic of the day” and apply it to “knowledge of the virtue of commenting on a topic”. Are you qualified to actually speak on that subject? Am I? Maybe best not to say anything, since I’m not sure.

https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/

LLMs have not improved my productivity. When I have tried to use them, they have been a net negative. There are many other people who report a similar experience.

And yes, reducing everything in the world - nothing matters. Everything is relative. What even is truth, amirite?

If that’s our slogan for the future then it is hella depressing.

This is not a guarantee that the text it produces is a correct explanation of the thing you are asking about. It’s a mental trick like a psychic reading tea leaves.

Or an alternate timeline where a different version of LLMs were invented.

It is incapable of knowledge.

I’m bored of it.

For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.

Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.

The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.

> Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes.

So you should really read it as “Will >30% of Manifold moderators in 2027 think the ‘predictions seem to have been roughly correct up until that point’?”

The author is talking about PowerPoint slides that were presented to the students as valuable information.