Most feel-good pieces on AI make the same mistake, which is looking at where the ball is and not where it's going. If progress were to halt today, this article would be relevant and I'd upvote it.
But since the richest and least trustworthy people on earth are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
The thing that strikes me about the 'paperless office' as it was hyped isn't how much paper use was reduced, but what was enabled or sped up by computer databases or the internet to work with a head office. Consider how restricted most mail order companies would be compared to the modern market if they could only communicate with their customers, suppliers, logistics and other partners via phone/fax/physical mail, and they either had one central records department or the difference in efficiencies handling a network of local branches/franchises.
That leads to pondering if we're actually seeing a similar shift today with AI.
> Most feel-good pieces on AI make the same mistake, which is looking at where the ball is and not where it's going.
Humans have a bad track record predicting where a technology is going.
I do not know where AI heads in the next 5-25 years (I have my hypotheses, but they are likely off, too), but I see a useful tool that allows many people to experiment with and try things that they could not before and I do not see why should I subscribe to the doomer view.
As far as the moral character of the leaders: that's common, too. Many luminaries were, based on recollections, seen as pretty bad human beings and that didn't run off on their inventions. My 2c.
Wealth is already concentrated. They’re just coming for the top 10% that affect the software devs now since they’ve taken everything else. You talked to anyone with an “unskilled” job in the last few years?
> are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
While two out of those three risks do not require anything "ultraintelligent", for killing most jobs it's worth remembering that their track is an appropriation of intelligence, and the speedups happen where it's easiest to measure more than where the tracks correspond to economic value.
Unfortunately, this has the opposite effect for safety, and can still do a lot of wealth concentration even if it doesn't end all jobs.
Extinction will come not with a bang but with a whimper. The boundary of the burgeoning poor — already at two nines — will expand to include pretty much everyone, and that underclass will dominate society to the detriment of everything in the commons: culture, civility, affordable food, education, thinking.
Western culture devolves into poor, corrupt, violent, petty criminality. Welcome to Mega Cairo.
> They're going to do all those things with or without AI.
Yes, but AI gets them closer to those things faster.
> We need to fight the end goals at a social level rather than the temporary means
Again, yes, we need to fight the end goals, but we also have to stop the harm caused by the means. If there’s an arsonist going around burning people’s homes we do have to catch them but we also need to put out the fire on the houses burning right now (imperfect analogy, sure, as they all are).
Usually these posts are about the benefits of using paper for your memory, focus, etc.
But I think a blank page is even more valuable for its explicit emptiness. You are somewhat required to be original when using paper. Or at least use your imagination than when you’re using a computer and can easily browse the internet for inspiration, use a software program to evaluate your writing or make suggestions, and so on.
It feels to me like culture generally has been unoriginal and echoing itself for a few decades now, and I do wonder how much of that is related to our choice of tools.
If like to point out that word processors existed well before DOS, and that DOS itself didn’t exist until many years into the personal computer revolution.
To this day there are people who still use Wordstar, for instance.
> This article was written with WriteMapper, a mind-mapping desktop app for thinking and writing available on macOS and Windows.
So, one of the things many people use paper for has been replaced.
Of course paper will never be replaced, I can't fold my computer into an airplane for instance. But it is still attacked from all sides. This article ironically is an example of replacing paper for note taking applications, it is also an example of not using paper for publishing, though that part is old hat now, to the point we are not even realizing it. Official documents turn towards digital signatures, e-readers are getting popular even to physical book fans, paper money use is declining, artists use tablets... It looks like paper as a support for writing is soon going to be like horses today, we still use horses, but only for very niche applications, and as sports/hobby.
I don't expect paper to be phased out as a material though, for packing, building, etc... It is cheap, environmentally friendly, and good for many applications.
you'd think so, but there's something you lose in terms of neural pathways, through some weird effect. I find that anything I physically write down sticks much better in my brain.
Except for sketching out ideas and designs for woodworking. Or jotting down any kind of quick idea I have when I am on the road (frequently). Or sketching an idea for a screen print or art design. Or making notes about what groceries to pick up the next time the wife and I head to the grocery store.
Actually, I use paper every day. I might even be going more "all in" on paper since I invested in fountain pens lately and have built a desk just for writing (with said fountain pens). But I'm probably an outlier.
(I do scan in my Field Notes notebooks to digital once I fill one up.)
I haven't used paper for anything since I graduated college 10 years ago. Excluding education where I only used paper because I was forced to, closer to 20 years. I would much rather open a text editor or a spreadsheet on PC.
I did use to review the AI slop code on paper, it was extremely effective in quality, but extremely slow as a feedback loop: https://imgur.com/a/ZRg5x7t
I am currently working on combining all of that into a code review tool to more effectively review slo.. AI pull requests. I am not sure if people here would be interested, but basically the idea is to not use the keyboard anymore to type your annotations, but only use a tablet / pen and voice (with transcription), so that code review is much more ergonomic. So you can "paint" on your code, make annotations, have a "physical" layout of your code, architecture overlays, etc. and then agents re-edit the code until it is what you want.
It will be public but I'm still working on it, its unusable yet (code rendering and painting works, but no feedback loop, no file format to save reviews, etc.): https://imgur.com/a/zpBpfco
AI won't replace old tech that works, is the point.
Paper is one such.
I'm less sure keyboards will stay to the same degree. My thinking was always the bottleneck while programming, so even though I can talk faster than I type, I couldn't solve problems faster than I type. But I can now.
So I'm opting for speech-to-text when the office space allows it, and looking into steno (stenography) keyboards, or perhaps building a steno overlay on my custom split keyboard to go from 80-100WPM to 200+WPM.
Clearly the vibe du jour seems to be to just throw AI at any and all problems. And sometimes there are better, simpler and more straightforward solutions
But since the richest and least trustworthy people on earth are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
That leads to pondering if we're actually seeing a similar shift today with AI.
Humans have a bad track record predicting where a technology is going.
I do not know where AI heads in the next 5-25 years (I have my hypotheses, but they are likely off, too), but I see a useful tool that allows many people to experiment with and try things that they could not before and I do not see why should I subscribe to the doomer view.
As far as the moral character of the leaders: that's common, too. Many luminaries were, based on recollections, seen as pretty bad human beings and that didn't run off on their inventions. My 2c.
Which is bad, and higher concentration makes the situation worse.
While two out of those three risks do not require anything "ultraintelligent", for killing most jobs it's worth remembering that their track is an appropriation of intelligence, and the speedups happen where it's easiest to measure more than where the tracks correspond to economic value.
Unfortunately, this has the opposite effect for safety, and can still do a lot of wealth concentration even if it doesn't end all jobs.
They are on track to kill themselves with their decisions.
Western culture devolves into poor, corrupt, violent, petty criminality. Welcome to Mega Cairo.
Yes, but AI gets them closer to those things faster.
> We need to fight the end goals at a social level rather than the temporary means
Again, yes, we need to fight the end goals, but we also have to stop the harm caused by the means. If there’s an arsonist going around burning people’s homes we do have to catch them but we also need to put out the fire on the houses burning right now (imperfect analogy, sure, as they all are).
Or imagining it’s going to the most utopian place possible, completely ignoring all the history which indicates the contrary.
But I think a blank page is even more valuable for its explicit emptiness. You are somewhat required to be original when using paper. Or at least use your imagination than when you’re using a computer and can easily browse the internet for inspiration, use a software program to evaluate your writing or make suggestions, and so on.
It feels to me like culture generally has been unoriginal and echoing itself for a few decades now, and I do wonder how much of that is related to our choice of tools.
To this day there are people who still use Wordstar, for instance.
So, one of the things many people use paper for has been replaced.
Of course paper will never be replaced, I can't fold my computer into an airplane for instance. But it is still attacked from all sides. This article ironically is an example of replacing paper for note taking applications, it is also an example of not using paper for publishing, though that part is old hat now, to the point we are not even realizing it. Official documents turn towards digital signatures, e-readers are getting popular even to physical book fans, paper money use is declining, artists use tablets... It looks like paper as a support for writing is soon going to be like horses today, we still use horses, but only for very niche applications, and as sports/hobby.
I don't expect paper to be phased out as a material though, for packing, building, etc... It is cheap, environmentally friendly, and good for many applications.
Maybe it would be different if I wasn't forced to use them to do things I hated for 10000+ hours.
Actually, I use paper every day. I might even be going more "all in" on paper since I invested in fountain pens lately and have built a desk just for writing (with said fountain pens). But I'm probably an outlier.
(I do scan in my Field Notes notebooks to digital once I fill one up.)
There is some science on this, how reading on paper activates different brain waves than a screen and how the physical layout of pages activates spatial memory recall: https://pg.ucsd.edu/publications/Papercode-printing-code-on-... and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-TEaM0pn3IZjrvQMHUDDCtB...
I am currently working on combining all of that into a code review tool to more effectively review slo.. AI pull requests. I am not sure if people here would be interested, but basically the idea is to not use the keyboard anymore to type your annotations, but only use a tablet / pen and voice (with transcription), so that code review is much more ergonomic. So you can "paint" on your code, make annotations, have a "physical" layout of your code, architecture overlays, etc. and then agents re-edit the code until it is what you want.
The code is https://github.com/fschutt/azul/blob/fix/input-bugs-2026-09-... - the code is surprisingly readable, but the UI is very janky and I've only tested a bit on macOS so far. I'm still working on the UI framework, performance, etc.
Paper is one such.
I'm less sure keyboards will stay to the same degree. My thinking was always the bottleneck while programming, so even though I can talk faster than I type, I couldn't solve problems faster than I type. But I can now.
So I'm opting for speech-to-text when the office space allows it, and looking into steno (stenography) keyboards, or perhaps building a steno overlay on my custom split keyboard to go from 80-100WPM to 200+WPM.