At first pass this seems 1) incredibly useful for me 2) incredibly expensive for them, but after using it a bit I'm thinking it might be incredibly valuable for them because once I review and approve one of the options, they're essentially getting preference data on which of the approaches I felt was "best".
I've been using it for problems where the model struggles. Even if it doesn't find an answer, the extra opportunity for it to explore the problem space usually helps in getting me closer to the right answer.
A minimalist, text-based memory system designed to naturally store and recall important events. It emphasizes simplicity, portability, and human-friendly structure by using six optional fields: who, what, when, where, how, and thing. These fields capture factual context clearly, deferring interpretation for later use or analysis.
I believe there's still plenty of margin to capture beyond merely overseeing AI. Could we reach a point where humans add no marginal utility? Maybe. I hope not, but we can't discount the possibility.
> I want us to plan, strategize, review, and set AI tools to auto. While they work, we're free to be human - thinking, creating, living. Agree, disagree?
It cannot be called assumption, when it comes directly from the horses mouth.
Plan and Do. You implicitly assume that you will survive the environment you intend to create, at its most basic.
Its not a big assumption to assume you are a rational and good person that intends to create an environment capable of raising and allowing children to survive, we wouldn't be having this discussion if I didn't make that assumption.
A big assumption would be your insane and delusional, but I didn't say that, did I? I wouldn't bother saying a thing if that were the case.
I pointed out the problems, and the important parts that should naturally occur with thought and a good education.
Minds much greater than yours (and mine) have attempted to tackle the underlying problems going all the way back to the turn of the last century (1900s). None of these have been solved, and the only thing learned has largely been that they likely can't be solved given the mathematical property of chaos. Mises wrote extensively on these subjects in the 30s.
Failing to think rationally based in external measure and failing to have a plan that is tempered by reality is a choice towards destruction/annihilation, once all indirection and contradictions have been resolved.
If you are interested in a conversation on HN (I assume so, since you made this post), it would help if you elaborated on the ~1 sentence you twice commented in response to a thoughtful writeup:
Which assumption do you see that's incorrect? I don't see one, and I'm sure you prefer clarity to arguing.
Happy to clarify. The parent comment tackles a macro-economic utopia I never proposed.
My post was about individual level gains: using AI to automate routine work, offload mental load, and free time to think, create, or just live.
I’m not claiming to fix the global economy, nor denying real risks like job loss or scarcity.
Labeling me a "summer child" assumes I am naive about those challenges...another projection.
In short, I described a practical benefit available today, not a perfect future.
A thoughtful reply would engage with those points instead of refuting a position I never took.
I don't think the parent made any of those assumptions. They also never labeled you a summer child. They just pointed out where the original suggestion leads.
Was your original question simply about your personal, individual level gains, or were you asking about a broader perspective (how it would affect all of us)? If it's the former, that's not a very interesting topic. Maybe the other poster assumed you wanted to discuss the latter?
It sounds like you took their comments personally, leading you to stop reading early. I can't blame you here, as I have done so myself before, but you might be missing some good points in the post which don't pertain to you specifically.
Totally hear you. Reinvesting saved time in higher-value / more interesting work doesn’t remove the structural-equity risk, which arguably might be the most challenging problem to solve.
I think it was faster in that I would have never written the book without the LLMs. Essentially they unlocked the swirl of thoughts and notes that lived somewhere between my head, TextEdit, emails to myself, and anywhere else I stashed things.
It's like it unblocked the "hard part" (getting the words into a coherent form for others), while letting me focus on the "value parts" (my unique perspective / ideas).
It might not be that overall it saved me time, but it made it a hell of a lot more fun, so in the end I completed it - and maybe AI helping us see things through to completion is where we'll see a big unblock in human potential.
Even in that it likely depends on what you're measuring for waste. Is it wasted electricity, or is wasted productivity/opportunity time waiting for your machine to boot up?
Thoughts from those who have used it?