Talking pretty, too -- which takes some intelligence, but not too much. The era of the awkward nerd is over. The world is returning to its natural order, with the slimy salesman in the lead.
Price of human intelligence is going up actually, because there's ever-decreasing amount of it, and we've invented a cheap substitute that makes people even stupider.
Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.
It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?
What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.
In my career I've worked with people with PHDs in Physics. People with advanced degrees in fluid dynamics and turbine engineering, people with chemistry and ChemE degrees, postdocs in Geology.
All were working alongside me, a self-taught programmer making websites.
I've long thought that there's an oversupply of smart people in the world but for the field of software development, which was hiding that fact by soaking all of them up.
If SDE is collapsing as a field, a whole bunch of people who thought their intelligence and credentials guaranteed them a comfortable life are in for a shock.
AIDE demonstrates that recursive self-improvement at the harness layer can produce transferable gains in an AI research agent’s research efficiency. During the recursive self-improvement run, the loop accepted seven rewrites, each under a fixed evaluation budget (section 3.2). Under this fixed evaluation budget, gains in optimization capability on AI R&D tasks translate to gains in research efficiency."
No, they can just solve tasks verifiably. Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards. Pure next-token supervision is only in the pre-training phase for modern LLM agents. They can also define new RL environments and pose new challenges to themselves and train themselves to solve them faster. Yes, at some point some human steering and judgment comes in as to what sorts of tasks to train towards. But there is no obvious taper-off at human level.
The actual report is by Epoch AI, which is financed by totally independent funds like (Eric) Schmidt Sciences.
Professor Tabarrok uncritically praises the report, which might lead to the conclusion that either human intelligence or moral standards are "falling rapidly".
These ML/LLM/AI are systems where no one will ever be accountable for and guarantee its stability, safety, and its value.
ML/LLM/AI may be useful, but it must always be considered unauthorized, mistrust, experimental, unverified, always probable to fail on each iteration. Its data must always be accountably supervized by an alive human, who realizes responsibility, life, pain, art, effort, love... Always, even at 2999+ years/times. No life/pain/art/love is no sense/trust/confidence/respect/safety.
That is, it may be fun to play with as a toy, as any ML/LLM/AI based system, where no trust exist but only probability, entropy, chance, luck... but nothing serious, time-rewarding, or humane enough to appreciate and love it in the long run.
An actual Developer is someone who prioritizes thinking and solution finding relying on something deterministic and accountable.
All systems based on LLM, ML, or anything that is algorithmically based on feedback system, learning, training, is indeterministic, and hence, always inaccurate, unreliable, and irresponsible systems, by design.
The process of art-working, coding, programming, development, solution finding... that feel of an achievement. This is what I understand, too. There's no achievement in anything AI-driven - it based on luck/moment/probability/chance.
"Oh My God! Please, all Gods, make this AI output the finally correct code! Please!"
Fudge it.
And you also pay for it. You pay and depend on it, on the the luck, for the chance, for the probability someone controls for you over an API or algorithm you don't even know or cannot verify due its "self-training" design, or it being close-sourced.
...you're gatekeeping programming... you are not seeing the big picture... you are missing opportunities...
No, sorry, never. I do not agree with that. These "responses" are coming from infants, immature, children, I believe, sorry... from those who could not care less about the development, responsibility, the overall process of the life of us, people, to find solutions, to reach the goals, to treasure achievements, to write our history with actual names of people on papers sign on papers by hand... for what will leave after us, with art, statues, quotes... in the infinite history of the ineffably magnificent world...
Your name should be in the code you write alone or with a team, your commits, solutions. Your work must be acknowledged and kept in the history. You should be always a respectable alive artist, who is responsible for their work. Our history must evolve, be preserved, respected, appreciated, and shine with glory of our achievements with human names in it for the incredibly marvelous future of opportunities, discoveries, love, and purely magnificent marvel.
There's whole space out there, still, and we must add and keep human names in the history cherished.
When intelligence is seen as a means to an end, rather than the lifeblood of your own perception, it makes sense the "price" goes down. What's being bought is, after all, artificial intelligence.
The price of intelligence is the same. What's being lowered is the standard of living.
This is really what the property owning class wants- they know they are not that smart and they have always paid other people to be smart for them, but the fact that the time of smart, educated people is expensive has always galled them.
As another commenter said, many of us have viewed our intelligence as a key part of our personhood and how we perceive and interact with the world. But capitalism has found a way to convert that, too, into a purchaseable commodity.
If intelligence is now meaningless and being perceptive is worthless, all that remains is the ugliness of stupid power.
Price of human intelligence is also falling rapidly. I suspect looking pretty is going to go up in value more rapidly.
Talking pretty, too -- which takes some intelligence, but not too much. The era of the awkward nerd is over. The world is returning to its natural order, with the slimy salesman in the lead.
Price of human intelligence is going up actually, because there's ever-decreasing amount of it, and we've invented a cheap substitute that makes people even stupider.
Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.
It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?
What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.
Group think is highly unlikely to provide new discoveries.
In my career I've worked with people with PHDs in Physics. People with advanced degrees in fluid dynamics and turbine engineering, people with chemistry and ChemE degrees, postdocs in Geology.
All were working alongside me, a self-taught programmer making websites.
I've long thought that there's an oversupply of smart people in the world but for the field of software development, which was hiding that fact by soaking all of them up.
If SDE is collapsing as a field, a whole bunch of people who thought their intelligence and credentials guaranteed them a comfortable life are in for a shock.
Well, since llms need matterial for self-education, someone still had to be inteligent enough. Or llms will freeze their “intelect” at some point.
Well, someone. But not necessarily anyone else.
Why would it freeze if they can create more training material. Its already been shown synthetic training data is just as good if not better.
Source, please! I'm a machine learning layperson but how can this not be overfitting?
For example, an LLM can prove a new theorem in math, verify it in Lean (so it is definitely true), and then prove more things based on that.
AI-generated data might not always be that useful, but at least in this case it obviously is.
https://arxiv.org/html/2609.26457v1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11873
Surprisingly, this isn't necessarily true.
To take an intuition: there are lots of problems that are easier to pose and to check than they are to solve, in mathematics.
No, they can just solve tasks verifiably. Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards. Pure next-token supervision is only in the pre-training phase for modern LLM agents. They can also define new RL environments and pose new challenges to themselves and train themselves to solve them faster. Yes, at some point some human steering and judgment comes in as to what sorts of tasks to train towards. But there is no obvious taper-off at human level.
Not necessarily. https://arxiv.org/html/2609.26457v1
A race to the bottom on price will be very good for profits!
The actual report is by Epoch AI, which is financed by totally independent funds like (Eric) Schmidt Sciences.
Professor Tabarrok uncritically praises the report, which might lead to the conclusion that either human intelligence or moral standards are "falling rapidly".
These ML/LLM/AI are systems where no one will ever be accountable for and guarantee its stability, safety, and its value.
ML/LLM/AI may be useful, but it must always be considered unauthorized, mistrust, experimental, unverified, always probable to fail on each iteration. Its data must always be accountably supervized by an alive human, who realizes responsibility, life, pain, art, effort, love... Always, even at 2999+ years/times. No life/pain/art/love is no sense/trust/confidence/respect/safety.
That is, it may be fun to play with as a toy, as any ML/LLM/AI based system, where no trust exist but only probability, entropy, chance, luck... but nothing serious, time-rewarding, or humane enough to appreciate and love it in the long run.
An actual Developer is someone who prioritizes thinking and solution finding relying on something deterministic and accountable.
All systems based on LLM, ML, or anything that is algorithmically based on feedback system, learning, training, is indeterministic, and hence, always inaccurate, unreliable, and irresponsible systems, by design.
The process of art-working, coding, programming, development, solution finding... that feel of an achievement. This is what I understand, too. There's no achievement in anything AI-driven - it based on luck/moment/probability/chance.
"Oh My God! Please, all Gods, make this AI output the finally correct code! Please!"
Fudge it.
And you also pay for it. You pay and depend on it, on the the luck, for the chance, for the probability someone controls for you over an API or algorithm you don't even know or cannot verify due its "self-training" design, or it being close-sourced.
No, sorry, never. I do not agree with that. These "responses" are coming from infants, immature, children, I believe, sorry... from those who could not care less about the development, responsibility, the overall process of the life of us, people, to find solutions, to reach the goals, to treasure achievements, to write our history with actual names of people on papers sign on papers by hand... for what will leave after us, with art, statues, quotes... in the infinite history of the ineffably magnificent world...
Your name should be in the code you write alone or with a team, your commits, solutions. Your work must be acknowledged and kept in the history. You should be always a respectable alive artist, who is responsible for their work. Our history must evolve, be preserved, respected, appreciated, and shine with glory of our achievements with human names in it for the incredibly marvelous future of opportunities, discoveries, love, and purely magnificent marvel.
There's whole space out there, still, and we must add and keep human names in the history cherished.
When intelligence is seen as a means to an end, rather than the lifeblood of your own perception, it makes sense the "price" goes down. What's being bought is, after all, artificial intelligence.
The price of intelligence is the same. What's being lowered is the standard of living.
This is really what the property owning class wants- they know they are not that smart and they have always paid other people to be smart for them, but the fact that the time of smart, educated people is expensive has always galled them.
As another commenter said, many of us have viewed our intelligence as a key part of our personhood and how we perceive and interact with the world. But capitalism has found a way to convert that, too, into a purchaseable commodity.
If intelligence is now meaningless and being perceptive is worthless, all that remains is the ugliness of stupid power.