on connor leahy's final reflection
Source material: 30 Reflections
Connor Leahy’s recent reflections on turning 30 are excellent—thought-provoking enough that I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing strongly with certain points.
One aspect that always puzzles me is when people discuss the world ending, especially on very short timelines (2-5 years, as Connor mentions). Before addressing this extreme perspective, we'd first need to clarify what is meant by "world ending." I'm interpreting Connor's meaning as referring to the demise of human creativity and liberty under a hypothetical future dominated entirely by attention-driven capitalism.
It's indeed plausible that attention will continue to drive economic growth, particularly within the tech sector—attention fundamentally fuels most activities. Connor references the joy of making niche art for oneself and a select few. Yet even this niche art inherently involves some external attention, however minimal.
Some might object here: "But niche art and extreme attention capitalism aren't the same thing!" True, passively consuming algorithmically tailored content differs significantly from actively creating niche art. However, even algorithmically driven consumption inspires action—motivating people to improve their health, build friendships, or even create niche art themselves. The issue isn't the medium or the AI technology itself. Connor fears an oppressive scenario where humanity is continuously placated by algorithm-driven pleasure, leaving only AI as the active creator.
I genuinely don't see the looming apocalypse here. We already exist in a society capable of continuously satisfying basic pleasures, yet creativity, niche art, scientific progress, and medicine continue to flourish. The essence of transhumanism lies in removing physical and practical barriers, allowing humans to pursue their natural inclinations: creativity, curiosity, and expression. Historically, technology has consistently solved these barriers, propelling us towards greater freedom and joy.
There's no compelling evidence suggesting current technological advancements, including AI, will deviate from this pattern. Rather than fearing AI's potential to replace human intelligence, I embrace its capacity to augment our capabilities—much as inventions like the wheel, metallurgy, and writing have done before.