I Believe In System 3 Thinking

But who gives a fuck about that. That's a subject for another day. Before we even get there, we have to address something being hotly debated, not just currently but seemingly for the last century: If given tools to achieve success, how many will pick up the hammer?

Point: https://x.com/PeterDiamandis/status/2086762139352498402

Counterpoint: https://x.com/dvorstone/status/2087181749855920479

My Point:

What if they are both right-ish?

What if Peter is right that AI does have a unique ability to become a personalized tutor, which will greatly increase the ease of which large populations of people can learn? AI is dynamic, and most important, adaptable. It can change up it's presentation style not just for each user, but also for each individual concept inside each individual study session that each individual user is pursuing. Suddenly, in the middle of a complex & highly technical discussion, you can have the AI talk to you like you're a dumb little baby and explain things using metaphors of Cheerios and Graham Crackers, if you just can't seem to wrap your head around the more "official jargon". And then once it finally clicks, perhaps after several rounds of various metaphorical distillations, you can jump right back into the more clinical and serious discourse. Very rarely will you ever find a professor willing to shift gears like this, and there certainly aren't enough of them to go around to give one on one learning courses to a small cities worth of people, let alone 8 billion of us on the planet.

But what if Dvorstone is also right? What if it's true that there exists a category of "low class" that refuse to engage in intellectual growth? Not "this is too hard, this doesn't fit with me, this isn't working for me", but literally "fuck this i don't wanna learn". And I think he is right that a lot of academically educated people do not understand that there are people out there like this. They find learning fun, so doesn't that mean everyone would? It's honestly a depressingly common gap in people who are otherwise usually very knowledgeable. They look at Hobby-A, Hobby-B, Hobby-C, ..., Hobby-Y, and declare "those just aren't for me, I see no enjoyment in that activity". But then they forget to connect their academic pursuits as "Hobby-Z", which becomes somebody else's "not for me" hobby.

"WHAT?", they gasp, an old timey tobacco pipe vape falling out of their mouth onto their plastic-laced cardigans, "People... REFUSE to learn? But, but... Why?"

Because they literally don't want to. They don't find it fun, any of it. No personalized tutor would change that. They literally don't enjoy the outcome. "Great, I now know that valence electrons exist in the outer most shell of an atom... So fucking what? Did my muscles get bigger? Did my cock grow an inch? Did my bank account expand? Did I get a high from that? Did my car get washed from those valence electrons?" (well... technically yes, but you get the point) They literally don't enjoy the process, outcome, lifestyle, or larping aesthetic of intellectual pursuits.

And because everything on the fucking planet is a spectrum, yes, there exists different degrees of this. Some people simply don't find enjoyment in the so-called "classical academic learning" paths, but they do enjoy learning about more "blue-collar", for lack of a better phrase, subjects. Who gives a fuck about the history of programming languages, let me tell you about this new V8 engine I just installed.

But, on the far end of that spectrum, are the... non-thinking-wanderers. Those who roam the earth, not looking for answers (for some, not even for experiences). They simply roam. And they do not want to talk to your fucking AI tutor.

But, then, how is Peter right?#

Well, I think it comes down to this tricky phrase: "equalizer". What does that actually mean?

If we accept that guns were the great equalizer, I think that's a good foundation to explore the concept that "equal =/= equal".

Ok, so, you're weak, skinny, small, frail, but hey! You have a 1911! Congrats, you can now compete on the same ground as anyone else who- Oops! You're dead! Better luck next time :)

But, what? If I had a gun, doesn't that mean I was equal to everyone else?

Yes! But also, No!

Power, like Potential, or Pad Thai, is not defined by one ingredient. Instead it is a complex composite of competing components. You can't blindly modify one thing without having a ripple effect on the others.

Ok great, you have a gun, and so does he. Where is the equality? In your kinetic ability to end each other. But your mental ability? That's an ingredient you must account for. Now that the crazy person has the same "equal" kinetic ability to kill you, he is actually above you in the power hierarchy because, well, he's fucking crazy. So his mental ability to instantly and randomly end your life trumps your more timid and reserved mental consideration for the life of others.

A crazy person with a gun is not equal to a well-adjusted socially-healthy person with a gun.

And yet, the gun "equalized" them (in one specific category of one specific portion of one specific action).

So now we're back to Pad Thai Potential. It is true that AI is uniquely enabled to bring an equalized kinetic learning ability to everyone (as long as the models, data, weights, and cost become aligned with that mission). But, if a person does not have the mental ability to utilize this to achieve what someone else will, then that potential spread remains "unequal".

And I don't give a fuck about that.

Honestly, the discourse around this topic is retarded. People are completely talking past each other, or about the least interesting things. Yes, we get it, some people are stupid fucks. No shit. Stupid fucks have been with us since the dawn of humanity. We can have debates on their role in society, why they are like they are, what to do with them when they start causing trouble to non-stupid-fucks, but can we please stop debating their existence? You need proof? Literally sit outside in any sort of public square for, like, an hour (microwave times may vary based on location). You'll see them. You'll probably see groups of them. Wow, look honey, it's like a safari. Careful! They might start rocking your car! Keep your hand flat when you feed them!

Why would we form discussions around an absolutely incredible technological tool that is showing insane growth, on the lowest common denominator among us?

Yes, some people will not use it. Yes, even when given equal access, some people will not visit the library of Alexandria. Yes, some people's potential is permanently low. That's ok. It doesn't, or shouldn't, affect your use of the tool. Nor does it mean we should abandon all attempts at bringing it to more people. I promise you, you are not smart enough to instantly calculate each and every single individual human's potential when given customized tools. So why bother stopping them from becoming customized, and handed out to the masses?

I think there's one argument towards this that has any merit: Giving everyone a gun, even the most degenerate & dangerous among us, does more than "equalize", it terrorizes. The same will happen with this widespread ultimate knowledge synthesizer.

If you wanna have an argument for that, I wouldn't write such a long rambling post about it. I feel like that is more worth our attention than "duhhhh, may be sum peepo are stoopid and may be we already tried wit skools and uhhh yeah look where dat got us haha"

---

Anyways, I think I made my current view on "give everyone a gun" clear in my last post.

I do hope we can achieve a next level of learning with AI assisted "elastic" learning tools. That's sounds very exciting to me.

I also hope we can achieve some next level Pad Thai.