Just curious here, how much of this was written by AI?<p>It seems to me to me to gloss over hundreds if not (tens of) thousands of years of human ingenuity.<p>Subtract AI, most people will probably be fine. Take away the plow and people will starve and die. AI is a luxury product and should be treated as such.<p>I would go so far as to say that AI "copilots" and "assistants" should not be allowed to refer to themselves in the first person. Can a plow refer to itself in the first person? Should a plow say, "Woah dude, we just hit a big rock"?<p>How many technologies came before the plow? How many people does it take to make a plow? How many people does a plow feed? How many technologies is AI contingent upon? A plow is a simple tool that has far more impact than AI has shown. It addresses a basic human need. AI, does not.<p>There are so many logic gaps in this argument. I don't want to go on.
This is a poor comparison that misses the reason why the plow took off. The plow was able to produce grains similar to human laborers at a speed that made scythes and bush knives obscelete. There was no more need for human labor because mechanized harvesting provided a "good enough" alternative.<p>AI does not mechanize human thought, create a suitable replacement product, or displace demand for human content. It is not the plow, because the plow was actually competitive and forced people to change their lives. Consequently, the smartest people today are probably the ones that least regard AI and LLMs.