In the ancestral environment, prior to even agriculture, was the “use” of humans merely to hunt and to gather? To reproduce? What is your “use” to your friends and family? What is the “use” in a smile, or a laugh, or tears, that an LLM could possibly take from you?
In the ancestral environment one didn't have to justify their existence. There were no taxes and no one would bat an eye if you built a cabin out of straw in the middle of nowhere to try and survive.
If you stayed in the tribe you were born in, no one would expect more from you than to contribute a bit of your time and effort for the well-being of the social group. Every pair of arms is useful, and on average there are enough that you can deal with the random invalid tribesperson; in fact even the invalid tribesperson would have a legitimate 'usefulness' to the tribe.
Given that this was the state of things for million of years, we shouldn't taint our assumptions by basing it on our modern utilitarian view of society. For most of our time on Earth, for every animal except the human, only the individual has determine their own usefulness, even if it is just to eat, reproduce and die. There's nothing wrong with that.
This feels like a bit of a philosophical question, and in that sense I think our usefulness may be a bit questionable already, so I'm not sure AI changes too much on that front. Seems like we're largely just a circular dependency anyway.
Being useless requires situational circumstances, and there's 9 billion people.
Even if AI takes over everything, humans will still create situational circumstances that require other humans; via desires and needs for various kinds of fulfillment.
Remember that there are people who do not buy Chinese products. There's people who will never work for Americans or trust Russians.
There are enterprises who just won't use AI for anything because they know they can hire and pay people. If it gets to the point where an enterprise, whatever size, cannot compete without AI, then it's game over, which isn't even ridiculous but makes for a fun story like shooting up stuff in the strait of Hormuz or blocking it for fun & gas prices.
Too bad most societies are built around the concept of utility, it's going to lead to a lot of issues (it already does) once both mental and physical human labor can be mostly replaced by capital. I always liked the world view of indigenious societies like e.g. native American tribes regarding this (not all their views), as they see humans simply as part of nature, you do not need to fulfill a purpose or be useful, you can just exist.
Why should I care of what others think if am I useful/pretty/cool/interesting enough or not?
This posts sounds like the capitalistic equivalent of those '80s movies where the losers are afraid of not being part of the cool clique in high school.
Don't worry about what some myopic idiots think about your perceived "usefulness". It's their problem, not yours.
The unstated premise of this question is that the goals we all aim for are about business/productivity, not the human experience. As I completely disagree with that premise, the question becomes absurd. Humans can never be useless - our existence and experience is the meaning we seek in life.
The primary use case for humans today is the metabolism of fossil fuels into carbon dioxide, long-chain polymers, pornography, machines for generating pornography, shit, and other environmental contaminants.
In the ancestral environment, prior to even agriculture, was the “use” of humans merely to hunt and to gather? To reproduce? What is your “use” to your friends and family? What is the “use” in a smile, or a laugh, or tears, that an LLM could possibly take from you?
In the ancestral environment one didn't have to justify their existence. There were no taxes and no one would bat an eye if you built a cabin out of straw in the middle of nowhere to try and survive.
If you stayed in the tribe you were born in, no one would expect more from you than to contribute a bit of your time and effort for the well-being of the social group. Every pair of arms is useful, and on average there are enough that you can deal with the random invalid tribesperson; in fact even the invalid tribesperson would have a legitimate 'usefulness' to the tribe.
Given that this was the state of things for million of years, we shouldn't taint our assumptions by basing it on our modern utilitarian view of society. For most of our time on Earth, for every animal except the human, only the individual has determine their own usefulness, even if it is just to eat, reproduce and die. There's nothing wrong with that.
This feels like a bit of a philosophical question, and in that sense I think our usefulness may be a bit questionable already, so I'm not sure AI changes too much on that front. Seems like we're largely just a circular dependency anyway.
No.
Being useless requires situational circumstances, and there's 9 billion people.
Even if AI takes over everything, humans will still create situational circumstances that require other humans; via desires and needs for various kinds of fulfillment.
Remember that there are people who do not buy Chinese products. There's people who will never work for Americans or trust Russians.
There are enterprises who just won't use AI for anything because they know they can hire and pay people. If it gets to the point where an enterprise, whatever size, cannot compete without AI, then it's game over, which isn't even ridiculous but makes for a fun story like shooting up stuff in the strait of Hormuz or blocking it for fun & gas prices.
Too bad most societies are built around the concept of utility, it's going to lead to a lot of issues (it already does) once both mental and physical human labor can be mostly replaced by capital. I always liked the world view of indigenious societies like e.g. native American tribes regarding this (not all their views), as they see humans simply as part of nature, you do not need to fulfill a purpose or be useful, you can just exist.
Why should I care of what others think if am I useful/pretty/cool/interesting enough or not?
This posts sounds like the capitalistic equivalent of those '80s movies where the losers are afraid of not being part of the cool clique in high school.
Don't worry about what some myopic idiots think about your perceived "usefulness". It's their problem, not yours.
The unstated premise of this question is that the goals we all aim for are about business/productivity, not the human experience. As I completely disagree with that premise, the question becomes absurd. Humans can never be useless - our existence and experience is the meaning we seek in life.
yes
No, not in our lifetime. Our kids - maybe. But not in our lifetime. Although work-life balance will look different in the next 10-15 years for sure.
The primary use case for humans today is the metabolism of fossil fuels into carbon dioxide, long-chain polymers, pornography, machines for generating pornography, shit, and other environmental contaminants.
Are you suggesting something’s changed?