pull down to refresh
I agree with your couter-examples. But my hedge was that AI doesn't do so meaningfully. Of course technology changes people, if you read the first half of the essay, it's clear I am not denying that.
You are free to disagree the narrarive that the AI revolution is a meme. If you think the impact of AI will equal that of fire, that would be interesting. I don't see it that way.
it's clear I am not denying that
Maybe you need to work on your writing clarity :) because you literally said "tech never changed humans"
formulate your thoughts into coherent pieces of writing, as I have done here.
Not exactly an endorsement of AI-less writing. AI could have helped you avoid these contradictions in your writing.
If you think the impact of AI will equal that of fire, that would be interesting
Fire is human control of energy towards productive ends.
Language is human control of information towards productive ends.
AI is human control of energy and information towards productive ends.
AI has all the ingredients of a species-changing tech.
I don't see it that way.
In my own experience, I've used AI to replace all my software subscriptions with a single AI subscription. I spent a couple months to vibe code alternatives to all the SaaS I used to pay for in my business. I've arguably made better versions of the software because I know my business better than some generic VC-backed software company.
Before AI, I would hire freelancers for one-off odd-jobs, but I haven't had the need since I started paying for AI.
I used to have a creative idea that terminated with "but that's too much work for me right now". But today, I get that idea shipped while on a lunch break and simply having that idea in the world sparks 10 more ideas! My creativity has been supercharged by AI.
Compare someone like me who has gone "all-in" on AI, vs. someone who hasn't yet and we're already starting to act like a "different species" with regard to our creative output, earning potential, ambition, imagination, etc.
It's interesting your experience around AI makes you feel differently and I was really hoping to find something insightful in this post. Take this as a challenge to dig deeper and find out why you feel this way.
Maybe you need to work on your writing clarity :) because you literally said "tech never changed humans"
I think you're being disengenuous. In case you're not, take your own advice and look up the meaning of the word "literally." You don't even need chat gpt, just a dictionary.
What is the contradiction? Doesn't the title state that AI is a meme? Is it contradictory to present a counter-argument?
Fire is human control of energy towards productive ends.
These are all very reductivst arguments, and give a great example what I'm talking about when I say it is a meme. Is that all fire was? Language?
And what of pennicilin?
Does being more prouctive meaningfully change the human experience? Couldn't we argue then that the story of humanity is one where we continually, gradually become more productive? Where is the disruption that AI brings?
And what of penicillin?
Antibiotics are human control of microbiology toward productive ends.
Does being more productive meaningfully change the human experience?
Yes. With zero productivity, then 100% of human experience is focused on "not dying". Every incremental productivity increase creates space in the human experience for other things. This changes the experience-space that a human life can explore.
Couldn't we argue then that the story of humanity is one where we continually, gradually become more productive?
No. Counter-example: The Dark Ages after Roman Empire collapse
Where is the disruption that AI brings?
Productivity increase is only "disruptive" if the market demands only a fixed amount of the thing being produced. Example: most people don't farm anymore, but farming used to be the #1 occupation. The reason for the disruption was productivity increased faster than our need to eat.
If the market demand is infinite, then there may be little disruption. Example: ATMs were predicted to disrupt bank-telling. However as more ATMs were deployed, the number of bank tellers increased. Each ATM made the bank more efficient, lowered cost, opened more branches to serve more customers, hired more tellers, because the demand to access your money fast is near infinite.
Just because its productive does not make it disruptive.
You would hope this led to men and women spending more time with their families, but it didn't, and on net, it just freed up people, especially women, to work more.
There are examples of people who used their productivity to create more family time -- but you did cherry pick those examples. The trend of increased workforce participation is a correlation not a cause.
What is the contradiction?
You open by warning against unscientific pattern-matching, cherry picking examples to draw a conclusion.
Then you did exactly that by cherry picking porn/social media algorithms, video generation, and tricking yourself into wasting time in order to draw a conclusion about AI.
I got bored of responding to you when you said,
Maybe if you had AI review your thoughts before posting, it would help you dig deeper and force you to actually think creatively/collaboratively and make a better argument.
If I were looking for the consensus view on something that is subjective in nature, I could have prompted Claude or any other LLM myself, but I guess all said, I'm glad you saved me the tokens.
The arguments in your comment are not mutually exclusive of anything I wrote, except for the fact that we differ in what each of us thinks qualifies a meaningful change to humans.
So far, you haven't engaged with the core of my argument, which is that statements like this,
Antibiotics are human control of microbiology toward productive ends.
are memetic. And hence, I said, "the AI revolution is just a meme."
There's no denying that we are talking about a consequential technology. I am however pretty conservative in what I consider meaningful changes in the human condition.
The core of your argument is nonsense.
If you say the AI revolution is just a meme, then I say Language is just a meme.
Everything is a meme. Keep making memes, stacker!
this entire post is a performative contradiction.
the first three paragraphs discount "theme-history" -- the practice of drawing a grand narrative from selected data points, reasoning out a story after the fact, dressing it in buzzwords, and oversimplifying to make a pattern emerge.
Then you continue to do exactly that for the rest of the post only you make the subject about AI instead...
The central thesis is just plain false: "AI does not and will not meaningfully change humanity, because technology never really has."
Its disproven by a single counterexample (harnessing fire, language itself, antibiotics). It's not a thesis at all, it's a mood. And I'm sorry you feel this way... Maybe if you had AI review your thoughts before posting, it would help you dig deeper and force you to actually think creatively/collaboratively and make a better argument.