It depends on college attendance. In developed countries, it is a low-excluding - or the inverse of a low-pass - filter as most graduate, while in developing countries it is a high-pass filter as few have the resources to reach an undergraduate level of education.
I really don't see how anything but social skills are rising in prominence. Perhaps twenty years from now everything will depend on your connections as any "hard" problems will be readily solved by AI (seeing as few problems are ever really novel).
> compliance, endurance of boredom, and social maneuvering
Compliance and endurance of boredom I can somewhat agree with (thought not to a great extent), but social manoeuvring? As long as a student completes their classwork and homework, and does well in their exams (none of which mandate any social interaction apart from team projects), they easily pass through the school system. In fact, I used to hear about how the school system disproportionately benefited studious, shut-in students over street-wise, socially-savvy ones.
Yeah but if you get bullied due to lack of social skills then you won’t have mental energy nor drive for passing exams or any learning.
Socially savvy students on the other hand will get plenty of help from teachers and other students even if they are not so good themselves.
This is why the so called “intelligence” where I will define it as skill of acquiring skills right now, is not so important for success. You can be very good at learning but if your social aptitude and charisma sucks then you will just end up as depressed, miserable and poor and probably alone too.
If you have a kid It’s honestly very important and way more important than homeworks or exams, to care about kid’s social development and how you can help so your kid gains social confidence and never loses it at crucial moments
Really, many jokes of this nature have to be signalled out-of-band somehow due to Poe's law (particularly applicable in this case). I wouldn't be surprised if a non-negligible number of users here actually held this view (due to a variety of reasons and justifications perhaps, but nevertheless still possessing such a perspective).
For a utopia to exist, everything has to go right. Dystopias are almost all modelled on some existing facet of human behaviour. Naturally one state is unstable as it requires practically complete co-operation in most cases while the other one is stable as it usually exists as some sort of undesirable equilibrium between competing forces.
With some technologies, the negatives are so severe it is difficult to see how they outweigh the positives. Mind-control technology is quite frankly just asking to be abused. It's the ultimate relinquishment of power - you reveal your entire hand to someone else AND let them do what they want with it. I honestly don't understand how some people are so optimistic that they think this technology won't be misused in ways that massively overshadow the good that could be done with them.
Why not just add 'mind control' while you're at it.
Only death stops stagnation in the end. Without death, especially if death can be avoided by the rich and powerful but not the poor, life will get much, much worse for the average person (until only the rich and their automated capital remain I suppose, in which scenario they will simply turn on each other).
This is the classic "without death, authoritarian depots will be in power forever".
But it's actually the wrong way around. Hope that the despot will soon die saps peoples' will to do the difficult and dangerous job of removing them. Take away that hope and they are forced to find the courage.
People might be willing to give their known-to-be-finite lives in pursuit of the Greater Good, but the equation changes greatly when you're giving up an eternity for the chance of making things better. More of the population would be aged too, so I think it'd be a lot harder to find the kids that usually die in wars.
Especially true if it is the AIs that get us the immortality- it definitely won't be equally spread, and any incumbents have a massive advantage.
I think more people would settle for worse conditions to stay alive. Do you think you'd be more likely to revolt at 150yrs old when all your family and yourself can live extremely long to forever? Or do you think the threat of death by killing wouldn't be an issue?
I don't think anybody wants to live forever in an old person's body. Frankly, I'm not interested in extending my lifespan unless I can stay young or regain youth.
Also, if you eliminate all the aging-related causes of death the average lifespan is still only like 1000 years or something. Nobody's getting eternity. And yeah, for the chance to make a big enough change of the right kind to society I would indeed give up a 1000-year lifespan. My memes have fully subjugated my genes, and I'm at peace with that.
Forced to find the courage or die trying to. And I really doubt that knowledge that their despot will eventually die has much effect on people's motivation to rebel as in most cases there is a clear line of succession. In many cases there isn't even a single despot to point to. This isn't even considering how such anti-aging technology would prevent despots' mental acuity from deteriorating as they aged - in fact they would probably grow sharper as they gained more experience so to speak. And aging/succession have almost always been one of the greatest destabilizers of a successful authoritarian regime.
Actually history shows that despotism or power in one single figure is a concept that waned with the increasing complexity of the world. One single despot could govern easily over matters of a small tribe or kingdom, but as states became more complex power was delegated to court, bureaucracy and even the bourgeoise. As the sovereign demanded ever more power it eventually needed to distribute power to the people, so it could tap its numbers. Napoleon’s schools for the peasants were so he could have a better and more numerous corps of officers than his rivals, which had a smaller pool of recruitment.
The same way programmers gave power to AI as a tool, so they could be more powerful in effecting automation, politicians that do not give up power to AI will be at a disadvantage to those who use AI to achieve more complex and effective power. The only problem might be the despot no longer shares power with those pesky humans but with a god in a machine, which in theory is in a box and does not have conflicting interests with the despot.
Ah, so you're saying none of us will benefit from the discovery of new mathematical knowledge?
You've just condemned funding math, even human-produced math.
Either math is useful, in which case AI math is useful, or math is not useful, in which case we can save money by having mathematicians sell shoes or clean toilets.
Look carefully at the portion of derac's comment that was quoted.
> I want accelerated material science, medical science, energy, better outcomes for people across the world.
Does it mention mathematics?
Let AI make advances in all these fields. But if most of the power and capital in society is captured by a tiny minority, then these advances will become inaccessible to common people.
