What i have seen: people can perform outstandingly well on classical intelligence without almost being taught. Think about mathematics or logic. But when you get into social/emotional territory, then it has a bigger correlation with how you were taught or your experienced when you where a small kid (but its not 100% causal). So in that sense its not the same thing.

Now, if you are unconfortable by calling it "intelligence", feel free to call it "skills". For me its the same thing as a football player having spacial awareness of the field. Sure, they have to be trained, but it is some "skill" that some people have an easier time using and improving.

> But what about those of us who are well into the flattening part of the curve, what can we do for ourselves? You can seek new experiences perhaps. If time goes faster because your life has fewer firsts and more routine, then it can be extended by adding firsts. You can learn new things, travel, take up hobbies, or new careers.

> This works, to a point, but there are only so many firsts for you, and chasing this exclusively seems to lead to resentment. You remember the things you had as a kid. You remember the excitement and warmth of that world, how immediate and raw everything felt, and you want to go back. You start to regret that the world has changed, even though what changed the most is you.

I like to think that life slows down once you form a stable image and story of yourself. The more you convince yourself that that image is fixed, the faster time will go by. That might justify why childhood seems longer, since that image seems to form around adolescence.

Experiencing new "firsts" but keeping that image of yourselfe fixed just works for a while. That is why it may lead to resentment, as the article says.

So dont fool yourself: some image of who you are gives you some stability, but just use it for that, so that you dont run crazy with options.

If you treat every event as something that might reshape your ego, then suddenly a big number of experiences are new, and time suddenly slows dont. It may even appear to dissapear from time to time.

Not everyone needs to be excited about LLMs, in the same way that C++ developers dont need to be excited about python.

For example, for your point 1: we could probably start there, but once you get familiar with the notation you dont want to keep writing a huge list of parameters, so you would probably come up with a higher level data structure parameter which is more abstract to write it as an input. And then the next generation would complain that the data structure is too abstract/takes too much effort to be comunicated to someone new to the field, because they did not live the problem that made you come with a solution first hand.

And for you point 2: where do you draw the line with your hyperlinks. If you mention the real plane, do you reference the construction of the real numbers? And dimensionl? If you reason a proof by contradiction, do you reference the axioms of logic? If you say "let {xn} be a converging sequence" do you reference convergence, natural numbers and sets? Or just convergence? Its not that simple, so we came up with a minmax solution which is what everybody does now.

Having said this, there are a lot of articles books that are not easy to understand. But that is probably more of an issue of them being written by someone who is bad at communicating, than because of the notation.

This type of resoning becomes void if instead of "AI" we used something like "AGA" or "Artificial General Automation" which is a closer description of what we actually have (natural language as a programming language).

Increasingly capable AGA will do things that mathematitians do not like doing. Who wants to compute logarithmic tables by hand? This got solved by calculators. Who wants to compute chaotic dynamical systems by hand? Computer simulations solved that. Who wants to improve by 2% a real analysis bound over an integral to get closer to the optimal bound? AGA is very capable at doing that. We just want to do it if it actually helps us understand why, and surfaces some structure. If not, who cares it its you who does it or a machine that knows all of the olympiad type tricks.

The premise is that AI does not allow to do this any more, which is completely false. It may not allow to do it in the same way, so its true that some jobs may disappear, but others will be created.

The article is too alarmist by someone who has drank all of the corporate hype. AI is not AGI. AI is an automation tool, like any other that we have invented before. The cool thing is that now we can use natural language as a programming language which was not possible before. If you treat AI as something that can thin k, you will fail again and again. If you treat it as an automation tool, that cannot think you will get all of the benefits.

Here i am talking about work. Of course AI has introduced a new scale of AI slop, and that has other psycological impacts on society.