The same way that physical ability is almost irrelevant in the modern economy but still matters socially because our social instincts carried over from the EEA, couldn't the social importance of intelligence have some inertia through culture or instincts? Social class is 50% actually making money and 50% signalling sophistication through intellectual interests, tastes, accents etc.. For leisured aristocrats cultural sophistication signalling has always been at least as important as looks/ charm.
I'd guess seeming intelligent in conversation (presumably chatgt can't help there?) is still probably going to hold cache and more intelligent people will prefer associating with each other. But maybe they would form different communities with different preferences rather than a hierarchical class system.
> I'd guess seeming intelligent in conversation (presumably chatgt can't help there?) is still probably going to hold cache and more intelligent people will prefer associating with each other.
Yeah, this is a good point. My only counterpoint is I've spent a pretty decent chunk of time around Burning Man and leisure class party people, and even though an average Burner is probably +20-30 IQ points on an average hedonist, intelligence just never seems to matter much. All the doctors and scientists and smart businessmen I've known in that scene are there mostly to explore other modalities, and although it's nice to find other *smart* people, creative and fun people are where the real value is at (IMO), and will be chosen over more-boring-but-smarter people.
There's probably an intelligence floor there, though, and there's a lot of assortation there in terms of average income / IQ's by camp and friend group. I guess I have a hidden assumption in there that any gap between that floor and where people are today isn't that significant.
I do think the more clickish leisure class "high culture" people you mention exist, but I think a lot of them would be Great Filtered - I think you'll have to be past a certain extroversion and outward-oriented threshold to still be around in this future, and a lot of "life of the mind" people probably wouldn't make it? Pure speculation, of course.
This was a good read though I still don't really understand why introversion is bad. Wouldn't there be subcultures that shun technology and value introversion?
> This was a good read though I still don't really understand why introversion is bad. Wouldn't there be subcultures that shun technology and value introversion?
Like camping / outdoorsy people? Self sufficient and survivalist and off-the-grid types? Religious folks like the Amish? I think you're probably right, they'll definitely exist, but haven't they basically opted out of society?
I guess I have an unspoken focus here on "the core of human people remaining in cities and interacting with each other socially."
I think the real "introversion" risk is for your kids, tbh - kids are way too attracted to screens and virtual worlds already, and introverts moreso. If there's superstimuli in virtual worlds (as will almost certainly happen), they'd get Great Filtered, even if they're not able to interact with them until adulthood due to cultural reasons / parental choices.
Also, are you assuming that reproduction will work the same way in the future as today (courtship, sex, familial child rearing etc.)? That seems unlikely in a 'post intelligence future.'
Like I've assumed that the personal assistants would more or less give us more of what we wanted, and since dating apps suck for most people, we would turn to the AI's for better matching. Certainly, a really smart AI should do better than we could ourselves, in terms of predicting long term compatibility and relationship satisfaction, because of revealed vs stated preference gaps (which I think reliably poison and skew most dating decisions). So you'd tell it "find somebody I'd have a really great relationship with where I enjoy every day with them," and your AI assistant would work with others, and they'd collectively come up with a match that was like that for both sides. And then if / when people want marriage and kids, they'll tell it "that, but with somebody who wants the same amount of kids and will be a good parent with me."
But what if people don't even want THAT? Or what if we go some "uterine replicator and different societal organization than nuclear family" child rearing scheme? Which, tbh seems like a fairly likely solution to the "fertility crisis," if revealed preferences have most people actually not wanting to be parents due to the extremely high social expectations and costs that attend parenthood nowadays.
Wealthy people are still having more kids, presumably partly because they don't care about losing some income to do it. In scenarios where much of our current work becomes obsolete, I tentatively think a focus on having kids expands to fill part of the resulting vacuum. I wouldn't be surprised if the fertility crisis ends up dissolving with little fanfare in the next couple of decades.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the fertility crisis ends up dissolving with little fanfare in the next couple of decades.
You're more of an optimist than I am.
The way I see it shaking out, all the credible AI companies are American, with China a fast follower. NVIDIA and others are already working on applying LLM's to robotics and driving some impressive results (look up Eureka).
I can certainly see a world where AGI + robotics gives *Americans* a permanent and broad leisure class via economic growth and UBI. But these technologies are applicable to the entire world, and our largesse will almost certainly not extend to UBI-ing the entire world.
And American fertility was barely a problem! All the real fertility crisis countries are in Asia and Europe. China might be okay - they're a fast follower with AI, they can figure out robotics, and they will probably be one of the biggest exporters of AI automation technologies to the rest of the world given their manufacturing prowess and volumes. They can probably make enough to UBI their citizens to at least today's GDP per capita.
But all the rest of the world? Where most of the fertility crisis is concentrated? *Completely* boned. No jobs, no UBI. And they're largely not nuclear powers, so no leverage.
I've been telling people I know that if they have non-US citizens overseas that they love or care about, start trying to get them citizenship now, because there's a chance things could get pretty bad, and there's basically no downside or difficulty today besides the usual friction.
The same way that physical ability is almost irrelevant in the modern economy but still matters socially because our social instincts carried over from the EEA, couldn't the social importance of intelligence have some inertia through culture or instincts? Social class is 50% actually making money and 50% signalling sophistication through intellectual interests, tastes, accents etc.. For leisured aristocrats cultural sophistication signalling has always been at least as important as looks/ charm.
I'd guess seeming intelligent in conversation (presumably chatgt can't help there?) is still probably going to hold cache and more intelligent people will prefer associating with each other. But maybe they would form different communities with different preferences rather than a hierarchical class system.
Interesting post regardless.
> I'd guess seeming intelligent in conversation (presumably chatgt can't help there?) is still probably going to hold cache and more intelligent people will prefer associating with each other.
Yeah, this is a good point. My only counterpoint is I've spent a pretty decent chunk of time around Burning Man and leisure class party people, and even though an average Burner is probably +20-30 IQ points on an average hedonist, intelligence just never seems to matter much. All the doctors and scientists and smart businessmen I've known in that scene are there mostly to explore other modalities, and although it's nice to find other *smart* people, creative and fun people are where the real value is at (IMO), and will be chosen over more-boring-but-smarter people.
There's probably an intelligence floor there, though, and there's a lot of assortation there in terms of average income / IQ's by camp and friend group. I guess I have a hidden assumption in there that any gap between that floor and where people are today isn't that significant.
I do think the more clickish leisure class "high culture" people you mention exist, but I think a lot of them would be Great Filtered - I think you'll have to be past a certain extroversion and outward-oriented threshold to still be around in this future, and a lot of "life of the mind" people probably wouldn't make it? Pure speculation, of course.
This was a good read though I still don't really understand why introversion is bad. Wouldn't there be subcultures that shun technology and value introversion?
> This was a good read though I still don't really understand why introversion is bad. Wouldn't there be subcultures that shun technology and value introversion?
Like camping / outdoorsy people? Self sufficient and survivalist and off-the-grid types? Religious folks like the Amish? I think you're probably right, they'll definitely exist, but haven't they basically opted out of society?
I guess I have an unspoken focus here on "the core of human people remaining in cities and interacting with each other socially."
I think the real "introversion" risk is for your kids, tbh - kids are way too attracted to screens and virtual worlds already, and introverts moreso. If there's superstimuli in virtual worlds (as will almost certainly happen), they'd get Great Filtered, even if they're not able to interact with them until adulthood due to cultural reasons / parental choices.
Also, are you assuming that reproduction will work the same way in the future as today (courtship, sex, familial child rearing etc.)? That seems unlikely in a 'post intelligence future.'
Huh, now THAT'S an interesting thought.
Like I've assumed that the personal assistants would more or less give us more of what we wanted, and since dating apps suck for most people, we would turn to the AI's for better matching. Certainly, a really smart AI should do better than we could ourselves, in terms of predicting long term compatibility and relationship satisfaction, because of revealed vs stated preference gaps (which I think reliably poison and skew most dating decisions). So you'd tell it "find somebody I'd have a really great relationship with where I enjoy every day with them," and your AI assistant would work with others, and they'd collectively come up with a match that was like that for both sides. And then if / when people want marriage and kids, they'll tell it "that, but with somebody who wants the same amount of kids and will be a good parent with me."
But what if people don't even want THAT? Or what if we go some "uterine replicator and different societal organization than nuclear family" child rearing scheme? Which, tbh seems like a fairly likely solution to the "fertility crisis," if revealed preferences have most people actually not wanting to be parents due to the extremely high social expectations and costs that attend parenthood nowadays.
So yeah, great point.
Wealthy people are still having more kids, presumably partly because they don't care about losing some income to do it. In scenarios where much of our current work becomes obsolete, I tentatively think a focus on having kids expands to fill part of the resulting vacuum. I wouldn't be surprised if the fertility crisis ends up dissolving with little fanfare in the next couple of decades.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the fertility crisis ends up dissolving with little fanfare in the next couple of decades.
You're more of an optimist than I am.
The way I see it shaking out, all the credible AI companies are American, with China a fast follower. NVIDIA and others are already working on applying LLM's to robotics and driving some impressive results (look up Eureka).
I can certainly see a world where AGI + robotics gives *Americans* a permanent and broad leisure class via economic growth and UBI. But these technologies are applicable to the entire world, and our largesse will almost certainly not extend to UBI-ing the entire world.
And American fertility was barely a problem! All the real fertility crisis countries are in Asia and Europe. China might be okay - they're a fast follower with AI, they can figure out robotics, and they will probably be one of the biggest exporters of AI automation technologies to the rest of the world given their manufacturing prowess and volumes. They can probably make enough to UBI their citizens to at least today's GDP per capita.
But all the rest of the world? Where most of the fertility crisis is concentrated? *Completely* boned. No jobs, no UBI. And they're largely not nuclear powers, so no leverage.
I've been telling people I know that if they have non-US citizens overseas that they love or care about, start trying to get them citizenship now, because there's a chance things could get pretty bad, and there's basically no downside or difficulty today besides the usual friction.