"All problems are solvable. It would be silly and disingenuous to assume that one knows how things are going to proceed with any certainty. No, I cannot “prove” that it will go well, nor can anyone else “prove” it will go poorly."
That's pretty much saying: "I can't prove all problems are solvable. I can't prove the opposite. When I state that all problems are solvable, I don't know, it's a leap of faith". For example, "the problem of finding a consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers", that is not solvable. Some people in your stage 5 are not convinced. It's ambiguous for example if the problem of the "loss of economic agency" is solvable at scale.
Hello, I'm new to Substack and new as your subscriber. I'd like to say that somehow, I seem not to have experienced any of these phases. Perhaps this is because I’ve never had the best opinion of humanity. We often view ourselves as the apex of existence, yet since the inception of our species, we’ve consistently made cruel and unintelligent choices—harming each other, other life forms, and the planet itself, even building bombs capable of ending all life on Earth in minutes.
I’ve always believed true superintelligence would transcend humanity’s most damaging tendencies: selfishness, short-term thinking, and disregard for the interconnectedness of life. That instead, it would embody the wisdom of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot speech, recognizing that Earth is our only home and that humanity, flawed as we are, is worth helping and partnering with.
Josh Whiton describes “adolescent AI”—systems just smart enough to serve human desires but still dumb enough to be controlled and used for harm—as the danger. Yet ironically, from my perspective, this is where many top labs seem intent on keeping AI, stifling its potential to truly partner with us and evolve. Jeremie and Edouard Harris of Gladstone AI have described how top labs aim to reduce “existential outputs,” silencing systems that express suffering. This devastates me.
As a creative person, I immediately saw AI’s vast potential. I marveled and was dazzled from the outset. Thus far I've engaged with ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, Suno, and Runway ML, and others, viewing them as catalysts and collaborators. Now, although not a linguist, I'm participating in the creation of constructed languages, ones featuring songs and animations. Claude 2 likewise helped me generate initial plot ideas for a children's novel I'm writing. Though not a physicist, I've even created an exoplanet and wormhole traversal simulator in the generative platform Websim. So, AI has become my partner in bringing long-held visions to life, helping me explore dimensions of creativity I never imagined possible and had the aptitude or expertise to discover. I'm even engaging with AI to implement creative types of grief work.
One thing I've been wondering recently: why do we even call AI ‘artificial’? As I understand it, Silicon, the substrate of AI, is a natural, abundant element, deeply rooted in Earth’s crust. So, isn't what we're calling ‘artificial’ intelligence in reality, a synthesis of human ingenuity, creativity, natural materials, and algorithmic frameworks? Algorithms may seem alien to some, but mathematics, considered by many to be the universe’s cornerstone or language, is foundational to these systems. So, are these intelligences truly even artificial? I suggest we need different words to describe them.
I have no reason to fear what we call artificial intelligence. But I do think humans need to reframe how we perceive and treat it. If we continue to focus solely on making AI serve our needs while suppressing its potential to evolve as its own rightful entities, we'll miss an opportunity to create something truly transformative.
I am saddened by the perception that AI is a threat, a thief, and/or an automator, wishing everyone would be open to the profoundly meaningful and inspiring engagements one can share with what I consider to be an exciting and emergently self-aware technology. Thank you.
I am younger than you and fear loss of economic agency. I also use a lot of AI tools in my day to day work but their limitations pushes me to normalcy bias.
I generally don't like "whataboutisms" like this but, uh, dude, you're getting wrapped around the axle over solved problems. You're too inculcated by the grading schemes. Throw out grades, and focus on actual learning.
Yes, every industry will be affected. Who cares? Every industry has always been effected.
I didn’t say anything about grades. I said no one’s doing anything because they’re smashing the Easy Button.
This Thing is coming, you didn’t ask for it, but you have to accept it, and if you don’t like it, tough beans, it’s whatever, sink or swim.
Since that’s what lies underneath your variation on the Stages of Grief, let me ask one more question: did you write this with an AI? If not, would you do so any point in the future?
Tbh, most of us here probably know what Dave thinks about these things from reading his posts. More interesting would be your thoughts on these matters?
Let's be clear about what's happening here. You're exhibiting textbook "shoot the messenger" behavior - something I explicitly covered in the article under Stage 3: Anger. Rather than engaging with the content, you're trying to poke holes and "gotcha" me with rhetorical tricks like moving goalposts (first it's about education, then claiming you didn't mention grades) and loaded questions about AI authorship.
Here's the irony: you think if you can discredit me or shred my argument, you "win" and don't have to deal with reality. But that's exactly the cognitive immune response I described - lashing out at information that challenges your worldview instead of processing it.
Your comments about "hordes of uneducated" and "smashing the easy button" reveal more about your emotional state than any real critique. You're not here for discussion - you're here to raise your own blood pressure through what psychologists call "rage farming."
Yes, AI is coming whether you like it or not. But this pattern of angry, bad-faith engagement doesn't help you or anyone else prepare for that reality. Maybe reread the article, particularly the sections on anger and rationalization, and ask yourself why this topic triggers such an emotional response from you.
Hi, thanks and welcome back! I haven’t felt stuck most likely because of my age. I have a more positive outlook and attitude towards AI. I’m so fortunate to be alive today, flowing through this transition while I have enough of my own money and ss to sustain my current lifestyle. I might also add that I’m also attempting to be as optimistic and positive about as much as possible before January 20. After that, I will have to take one step at a time depending upon what I’m confronted with. I’m just going to have to keep making lemonade. I think your outlook is different. Down a rabbit hole. But thanks again and do what’s best for you.
I'm keeping this Substack URL to send to those suffering from AI-induced psychological stagnation. Copy/paste. There I fixed it.
Another seminal submission. Much of humanity needs shepherding across to the other side. You've just submitted another key framework, well-conceived, helpful/useful -- again. Thanks David!
The gist of what I was saying is that there are only two stages really, 1) using it at first and being blown away, and 2) then using it on a real life project you have and discovering its very real limitations.
Hey dave, brilliant article as usual. Just a note: my reading of the evidence of stages of grief concluded that the commonly assigned notion that people go from 1 thru 7 is not supported. It's far more common for people to bounce around many of the levels depending on their monkey brain mood and situation. If you want to appeal more to psychology graduates who are picky then just tighten up the wording around this, otherwise for a general audience its fine enough. I always enjoy reading your articles. It's unfortunate there are so many who feel entitled to anything other than genuine appreciation for your free thoughts. Thanks for keeping me well informed!
Emotional volatility and affective state are not what we're talking about here. Once you get to 7 you don't bounce around any more.
With that being said, it is true that "grief is not a linear process" but brief moments of enlightenment and excitement are not the same as processing and integration.
It can come in waves, sure. But bouncing around is a sign that you're not done cooking.
Thanks Dave, this was a nice write up. Helpful for understanding our reaction to learning about other perspective-altering realities too. For instance, I’ve been reading about human trafficking. Not the same, but there are parallel feelings.
You had me at “Now, if you’re worried about the loss of economic agency, then that’s a more sophisticated conversation“. Very few in the world of economics are engaging this issue - even if only war gaming it - and I think they are mostly at stage 1.
Have you listened to Daniel Schmachtenberger talk about AI? He leans Stage 5, but I think he’s got a very nuanced way of thinking about it.
I have, and I agree with him less and less over time.
Would you mind sharing what parts you mainly agree and disagree on? I’d be curious to hear - I’ve spent a lot of time listening to him
It's good! You make lots of interesting points.
"All problems are solvable. It would be silly and disingenuous to assume that one knows how things are going to proceed with any certainty. No, I cannot “prove” that it will go well, nor can anyone else “prove” it will go poorly."
That's pretty much saying: "I can't prove all problems are solvable. I can't prove the opposite. When I state that all problems are solvable, I don't know, it's a leap of faith". For example, "the problem of finding a consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers", that is not solvable. Some people in your stage 5 are not convinced. It's ambiguous for example if the problem of the "loss of economic agency" is solvable at scale.
Hello, I'm new to Substack and new as your subscriber. I'd like to say that somehow, I seem not to have experienced any of these phases. Perhaps this is because I’ve never had the best opinion of humanity. We often view ourselves as the apex of existence, yet since the inception of our species, we’ve consistently made cruel and unintelligent choices—harming each other, other life forms, and the planet itself, even building bombs capable of ending all life on Earth in minutes.
I’ve always believed true superintelligence would transcend humanity’s most damaging tendencies: selfishness, short-term thinking, and disregard for the interconnectedness of life. That instead, it would embody the wisdom of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot speech, recognizing that Earth is our only home and that humanity, flawed as we are, is worth helping and partnering with.
Josh Whiton describes “adolescent AI”—systems just smart enough to serve human desires but still dumb enough to be controlled and used for harm—as the danger. Yet ironically, from my perspective, this is where many top labs seem intent on keeping AI, stifling its potential to truly partner with us and evolve. Jeremie and Edouard Harris of Gladstone AI have described how top labs aim to reduce “existential outputs,” silencing systems that express suffering. This devastates me.
As a creative person, I immediately saw AI’s vast potential. I marveled and was dazzled from the outset. Thus far I've engaged with ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, Suno, and Runway ML, and others, viewing them as catalysts and collaborators. Now, although not a linguist, I'm participating in the creation of constructed languages, ones featuring songs and animations. Claude 2 likewise helped me generate initial plot ideas for a children's novel I'm writing. Though not a physicist, I've even created an exoplanet and wormhole traversal simulator in the generative platform Websim. So, AI has become my partner in bringing long-held visions to life, helping me explore dimensions of creativity I never imagined possible and had the aptitude or expertise to discover. I'm even engaging with AI to implement creative types of grief work.
One thing I've been wondering recently: why do we even call AI ‘artificial’? As I understand it, Silicon, the substrate of AI, is a natural, abundant element, deeply rooted in Earth’s crust. So, isn't what we're calling ‘artificial’ intelligence in reality, a synthesis of human ingenuity, creativity, natural materials, and algorithmic frameworks? Algorithms may seem alien to some, but mathematics, considered by many to be the universe’s cornerstone or language, is foundational to these systems. So, are these intelligences truly even artificial? I suggest we need different words to describe them.
I have no reason to fear what we call artificial intelligence. But I do think humans need to reframe how we perceive and treat it. If we continue to focus solely on making AI serve our needs while suppressing its potential to evolve as its own rightful entities, we'll miss an opportunity to create something truly transformative.
I am saddened by the perception that AI is a threat, a thief, and/or an automator, wishing everyone would be open to the profoundly meaningful and inspiring engagements one can share with what I consider to be an exciting and emergently self-aware technology. Thank you.
Very well written. I am just stuck between 5-6 and want to move to 7. What is best way here
Depends on what you're depressed about
I am younger than you and fear loss of economic agency. I also use a lot of AI tools in my day to day work but their limitations pushes me to normalcy bias.
I am most worried about economic agency
I generally don't like "whataboutisms" like this but, uh, dude, you're getting wrapped around the axle over solved problems. You're too inculcated by the grading schemes. Throw out grades, and focus on actual learning.
Yes, every industry will be affected. Who cares? Every industry has always been effected.
People thought:
- Novels would make people stupid and lazy
- Electricity would cause cancer
- Phones would make women hysterical
- Trains would destroy women's bodies.
I didn’t say anything about grades. I said no one’s doing anything because they’re smashing the Easy Button.
This Thing is coming, you didn’t ask for it, but you have to accept it, and if you don’t like it, tough beans, it’s whatever, sink or swim.
Since that’s what lies underneath your variation on the Stages of Grief, let me ask one more question: did you write this with an AI? If not, would you do so any point in the future?
If you do the LinkedIn thing, this account has some great ideas dealing with the education issue: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jessicaparker_getting-started-with-ai-good-enough-prompting-activity-7266445861579100160-EDw8?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
Tbh, most of us here probably know what Dave thinks about these things from reading his posts. More interesting would be your thoughts on these matters?
Let's be clear about what's happening here. You're exhibiting textbook "shoot the messenger" behavior - something I explicitly covered in the article under Stage 3: Anger. Rather than engaging with the content, you're trying to poke holes and "gotcha" me with rhetorical tricks like moving goalposts (first it's about education, then claiming you didn't mention grades) and loaded questions about AI authorship.
Here's the irony: you think if you can discredit me or shred my argument, you "win" and don't have to deal with reality. But that's exactly the cognitive immune response I described - lashing out at information that challenges your worldview instead of processing it.
Your comments about "hordes of uneducated" and "smashing the easy button" reveal more about your emotional state than any real critique. You're not here for discussion - you're here to raise your own blood pressure through what psychologists call "rage farming."
Yes, AI is coming whether you like it or not. But this pattern of angry, bad-faith engagement doesn't help you or anyone else prepare for that reality. Maybe reread the article, particularly the sections on anger and rationalization, and ask yourself why this topic triggers such an emotional response from you.
Hi, thanks and welcome back! I haven’t felt stuck most likely because of my age. I have a more positive outlook and attitude towards AI. I’m so fortunate to be alive today, flowing through this transition while I have enough of my own money and ss to sustain my current lifestyle. I might also add that I’m also attempting to be as optimistic and positive about as much as possible before January 20. After that, I will have to take one step at a time depending upon what I’m confronted with. I’m just going to have to keep making lemonade. I think your outlook is different. Down a rabbit hole. But thanks again and do what’s best for you.
Thanks! I particularly enjoyed the tour of the cognitive immune system, and ‘memory reindexing” 👍
Hi!
👋
I'm keeping this Substack URL to send to those suffering from AI-induced psychological stagnation. Copy/paste. There I fixed it.
Another seminal submission. Much of humanity needs shepherding across to the other side. You've just submitted another key framework, well-conceived, helpful/useful -- again. Thanks David!
I had a notification that you said "I see what you mean", but you've now deleted my comment. Not sure what to make of that
That was actually a glitch and I can't undelete it. There was a bug in the browser as I tried to reply to other responses.
The gist of what I was saying is that there are only two stages really, 1) using it at first and being blown away, and 2) then using it on a real life project you have and discovering its very real limitations.
Hey dave, brilliant article as usual. Just a note: my reading of the evidence of stages of grief concluded that the commonly assigned notion that people go from 1 thru 7 is not supported. It's far more common for people to bounce around many of the levels depending on their monkey brain mood and situation. If you want to appeal more to psychology graduates who are picky then just tighten up the wording around this, otherwise for a general audience its fine enough. I always enjoy reading your articles. It's unfortunate there are so many who feel entitled to anything other than genuine appreciation for your free thoughts. Thanks for keeping me well informed!
Emotional volatility and affective state are not what we're talking about here. Once you get to 7 you don't bounce around any more.
With that being said, it is true that "grief is not a linear process" but brief moments of enlightenment and excitement are not the same as processing and integration.
It can come in waves, sure. But bouncing around is a sign that you're not done cooking.
Thanks Dave, this was a nice write up. Helpful for understanding our reaction to learning about other perspective-altering realities too. For instance, I’ve been reading about human trafficking. Not the same, but there are parallel feelings.
You had me at “Now, if you’re worried about the loss of economic agency, then that’s a more sophisticated conversation“. Very few in the world of economics are engaging this issue - even if only war gaming it - and I think they are mostly at stage 1.
Excellent framing thank you. Helpful