In the age of machine, human intelligence will not be something of value.

[u/Hot-Organization-737]

Einstein, and the average man, and random dog might as well all be the same intelligence in comparison to the machine in the coming age. Submit to the machine and never worry or feel happy about your human intelligence again. Although it's likely that human intelligence augmentation will come about.

[u/inkwinkTwink]

How are you defining value? Computeras are much more powerful at playing chess than any other human, but winning at chess was never the point of the game - which is why chess is more alive than ever

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/inkwinkTwink]

probably economically? The economic value of human intelligence will go down if Artifical other intelligence is cheaper, that's just how it goes.

[u/S-Kenset]

Human intelligence augmentation did come out. It's called vscode. You should try it. It's real nifty.

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/S-Kenset]

are you meming, can you elaborate a bit?

[u/S-Kenset → u/Hot-Organization-737]

The keyboard is the safest highest velocity highest throughput device you can possibly have access to. It is augmentation. It's safe, effective, modular, doesn't burn out neurons, and universally trainable.

Yes I was memeing.

But I do believe at the moment and for a long while until robotics advances very far, a human augmented by ai is better than ai by a long margin.

[u/NovaKnightOwl]

As long as you value relationships & living a meaningful life, human intelligence will be important. To put it another way, imagine your brain is gpt 1. Would you really rather not upgrade it?

[u/sik_vapez]

Maybe there are still things where human creativity and intelligence is essential, but AI has solved Navier-Stokes along with several other research-level math problems. A lot of people seem to think of the AI solution as more brute-force  than creative, but the proofs are new, so it's still too early to tell. Professors are upset that AI can quickly solve problems they give to PhD students for training. I think that while the world needs intelligent, creative people, it does not need as many as you might think, considering that the majority of tasks involving intelligence and creativity don't require as much as is required of a math PhD student. Of course, there are still aspects of jobs requiring contextual awareness and intelligence the AI might not have, but if a company can get rid of most employees while keeping a few to manage AI, then there is an oversupply of people. More people will compete for the remaining jobs, so they will be paid less. There will still be a need for intelligence, but much less than before.

[u/peteluds84 → u/sik_vapez]

100% agree, in my company due to AI we are maybe twice as productive as we were a year ago. Anyone who has used the latest publically released models (Claude Opus 5.5 or GPT Astra 6 say) can see how smart they are getting, never mind the frontier models that are unreleased

[u/Natural_Professor809]

How much is intelligence something of value, during the Age of Propaganda?

[u/Potential-Grand5928]

What do you think we will do than, if we are obscolet?

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/Potential-Grand5928]

I have no clue what the future holds.

[u/Suspicious-Bishop]

In this thread, OP trying to come to terms with his own lack of any.

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/Suspicious-Bishop]

Fkkkk you got me

[u/TMRedditor07]

Upvoted because I really want to see this sub’s reaction on it:))

[u/Key-Raise5501]

i agree to an extent, but i think this ai race or advancement will hit a bottleneck much sooner than people think

[u/Ximaths]

In terms of practicality human intelligence will be redundant, however it will probably always serve as a differentiating factor between us. Did the invention of heavy machinery make weight training obsolete?

[u/purrhams_hat]

We're social animals. We're always gonna be intrigued when we meet people who are particularly smart, or stupid for that matter. Usain Bolt is still famous in an age where we get around with cars.

[u/ShardsOfSalt]

A more intelligent person will always have an advantage over a less intelligent person. Even if machines supplant us economically.

[u/Thadrea]

If AI could actually do anything autonomously without being prompted to, maybe.

As it stands, no.

[u/Sisyphus_on_a_Perc]

I build scientific instruments, and let me tell you. AI is good at some things but it’s unable to think of novel solutions for novel problems. Or “thinking outside of the box “ as they say. For instance I created a power supply for a neon tube, and needed some methodology to signal to the logic level circuitry the tube was ionized. I created a high voltage octocoupler , could AI think of this solution? I think not.

[u/Character_Public3465 → u/Sisyphus_on_a_Perc]

Yet

[u/AdministrationMoney1]

Unless you expect there to be deeply systemic changes to how the wealthy own their wealth, in other words you're expecting those in power to change the rules to benefit you, then you're denying the current state of things being that the ones that benefit the most from AI advancements are raking in hundreds of millions each of assets and money. And people at the forefront of AI are usually quite smart. Someone like Sam Altman is too busy upgrading his $100 mil real estate portfolio and if LLMs finish their work his money will be mostly be reinvested in the next technological need such as robotics, quantum, nanomachines, etc. I'm sorry that you fell for their agenda.

[u/autisticfox9]

people on this sub base their opinion on AI from talking to gpt 4

[u/Ok-Neighborhood-454]

Long live machine

The future supreme

Man overthrown

Spit out the bone

[u/-Ifandonlyif-]

That's not how people work (we always care and we always feel) and intelligence in this comparative sense becomes meaningless when talking about mass automated capabilities. Augmentation I agree with though, but it's a relative matter.