should we stop treating the idea that humans must possess some capability AI can never replace as the starting point for discussions about humanity's future?
I'm inclined to think we should.
Preserving human agency is a moral and institutional choice, not something that needs to be justified by human cognitive superiority
[–] pona-a 2 days ago
[–] LewisOrton 2 days ago
1. what we currently perceive as a lack of capability in a particular domain often comes down to the model simply not having received targeted RL training for that domain (yet). Look at Opus 5.5 in motion graphics: after its first round of specialized RL, it was already producing work that surpassed the average professional designers(and it's using vanilla javascript vs human with After Effects, let that sink in). It doesn't need to beat the top 1% of designers to fundamentally disrupt the profession. Most professionals aren't the top 1%.
2 people rarely hold agents to the same standards and workflows they apply to human professionals. A human designer gets to iterate and refine until the work meets expectations. Yet ppl often judge AI based on oneshot or fewshot attempts (these are just "wishes") and treat whatever comes out as the ceiling of its capabilities. Why shouldn't an agent be allowed to iterate against the same acceptance criteria until the result is good enough?
that's before considering domain-specific skills& loops, which can dramatically improve performance in specialized tasks.
The relevant comparison isn't an experienced professional vs LLM given a prompt five mins ago,it's a professional vs agentic system w access to the same project context(including tools and feedback, and opportunities to iterate)
[–] viklove 2 days ago
> I'm inclined to think we should.
Mate, I think we're not even invited to the conversation. A small group of people are planning humanity's future and they're going to inflict it on us whether we like it or not.
You know, unless someone stops them somehow.
[–] perchedonstilts 2 days ago
The issue is that what's considered "moral" by the majority of society does not stop those already in power from doing as they please (the institutions).
There is a fundamental inequity that exists in our society that allows those with more to have an outsized vote in determining how the finite resources (human/land/capital/etc.) on this planet are distributed.
It's the problem of delegation: you can do more of something, but worse, the more people you bring in. LLMs are just a very cheap contractor with a zero liability clause and some unchecked sycophantic tendencies.