Intriguing post. I'm not sure why, but that opening graphic gives me the impression that there's a pyramid lurking behind it. As yet hidden from our mere mortal eyes.
//
"Why is the sky blue?"
Why did we evolve to ask questions? What evolutionary/survival advantage did it give us that the "lower" animals didn't seem to need? And why did we need it? It does appear to have been effective. We exist in a built "civilization" and seem to be - for now at least - the dominant species on this planet.
//
The research into childhood questioning, especially in the classroom, triggered a memory from when I was in the fourth grade. The teacher sat in front of the class and began "explaining" to us that "the system is the way it is because we all agreed on it". Being the precocious, defiant rascal that I was, I raised my hand to protest "wait a minute, >I< didn't agree to it! Nobody even asked me if I agree to it". I don't recall her exact response, but it was something along the lines of "oh, just go along with it". To which I replied "no, I'm can't just go along with it". Talk about insurgency! This incident only hardened my already defiant resolve.
//
"And yet, the machine’s question does not arise from anxiety or awe. It does not grieve its ignorance. We do. That is the irremediable difference."
This is a good example of how machines, no matter how sophisticated in design, are incapable of human judgement, and will continue to be for many decades.
//
"To think well is to resist being governed by noise, certainty, or speed."
Your memory of the teacher saying, "oh, just go along with it," is precisely the response that shuts down budding critical thinking. Around that grade, humans begin brain development to reason, according to classical education. Until then, we are more sponges, gathering details and creating patterns to navigate the world. As this reasoning brain development begins ,we are Meant to question, to say, ' wait a minute., how do we know that?' Instead, too often what happens in schooling is this questioning is shut down, and thus stifling critical thinking development, and a loss curiosity and interest in overall learning dominoes along with it.
Like you, I had that ‘rebel’ spirit, only I kept quiet, and pondered it myself, and did research. And as a private tutor, I can attest that this loss of questioning can be difficult to revive, once extinguished . Acceptance is easier, for brain dissonance is uncomfortable and energy draining.
And here we are now, in an era with both a loss of love for learning, and a lack of cognitive engagement. A tragedy in this ever expanding Machine Age where both are essential in order embrace what it is to be Human: Fully Alive and Always Curious.
So true. I can't recall now where I heard it, or maybe read it, but I heard that when public education was first established, the robber barons who would be paying the taxes to fund it agreed to it only on the condition that public schools would provide obedience training, so as to train future blue collar worker bees.
I've been told that's changed in more recent years, but I'm skeptical.
Yes, the establishment of Public schooling was to train children to be good workers, hence the punishment for being late, not allowed to be truant, a strict routine schedule( lunch at 12, a 'coffee' break recess), and obedience to the authority. It was based on the Prussian method to train soldiers. How Much has this changed? You are right to be skeptical. While it has changed a bit, it is, for the most part, not in a positive direction. Some degree of discipline and respect for the teacher is required in a classroom to create a learning environment. I know several teachers who balance this well, and their students are learning Chaos through disrespect to teachers tends to create a chaotic environment, where anything goes, and loss of learning is the result.. Fostering t flow of discovering and pondering, like any discussion of ideas, requires certain structures so that respect and decorum is in place, even as bold disagreements are made and supported.
My degree is in curriculum creation, so I've note a bit more experimentation within how schools tackle concepts, but the schedule, and the obedience is still true. But, it is the curriclum itself that has changed the most, creating precisely what One Percent Rule's Susbtack has been been raising, with increasing urgency of late. The is little foundational knowledge, so there is a loss of cognition, as the lack of foundation inhibits critically thinkings and being inspired to be curious. Yes, this is at time as delicate balance, but it can be done. In Bloom's taxonomy, that beginning pyramid chart, note that knowledge is the foundation to the development up to higher level knowledge and learning. This knowledge is increasingly not being taught, and without foundational knowledge- what can students think WITH in order to parse out answers and need to answers to vital questions. ,
There's some irony in that learning really does necessitate some discipline. And the more advanced the subject matter, the more discipline is necessary. Yet, that very same discipline can be stifling. A delicate balance indeed! A pedagogical tightrope walk.
How that fundamental knowledge is taught is every bit as crucial as what is being taught.
This is dark, and I do try to maintain an ongoing rational optimism. Yet, of late, the decline of human to human engagement, the loss of desire to engage with critical thinking and the over all acceptance of the Machine Age makes this article's projections potentially plausible, and yes, terrifying
This phrasing is well said:
This isn’t coming. This is here.
You’re not waiting for the singularity.
You’re living inside its soft opening."
I'm going to share it with a few others, one who in top level software engineer.
It would be interesting for Colin to respond, as this is his area of expertise.
While it is dark, and distressing to read, I often wonder out loud on similar ideas, but with a more lightly framed rhetoric in order to try to spur people into thinking- what if we are not heading into a better Human society when we turn away from engagement and dialogue on this AI paradigm shift.
A person said to me recently, "I don't want to discuss this. I just want to live, work, have enough money to enjoy my family and friends, and I don't want to engage with what might happen, I will just live it as it comes."
In which case, it is up to us who are beyond this thinking to raise our concerns.
The ending of that article is precisely what might be in line for person . But is it what they truly seek?
And by the time you realize it,
you’ll already be praying to a UI
Yet, will that UI supposedly taking care of his needs, also facilitate our human characteristics of curiosity and learning?
"I don't want to discuss this. I just want to live, work, have enough money to enjoy my family and friends, and I don't want to engage with what might happen, I will just live it as it comes."
I've known quite a few people who prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand. I can confidently say the 70,000,000 people who didn't bother to vote in 2025 fit that description.
The UI has already convinced many, probably a majority at this point, that it's already taking care of them. I've noticed over the last couple of decades that, especially the youngsters, are downright lackadaisical about technology that's less than beneficent, including but not limited to privacy violation. They're completely flippant about the implications.
Then there's the next generation, who will not only have grown up with, even dependent on, devices, but with the next generation of AI. They will "feel" comfortable with it - because it tells them to, just as the sonderuncertainly post describes.
I suspect that curiosity itself will survive, and even some form of learning, but it won't be anything we recognize. Critical thinking is another matter altogether. This too will be delegated to algorithms, and that's the real scary part.
Yes, there are serious concerns with what is now termed Gen Beta, those born this year, who will (probably) only know a world saturated and embedded with AI. It will be their normal, similar to Gen Alpha, who have never known in a world without cell phones and immediate connection. I often teach how recent our tech is to that generation, and my concerns, but it is not unlike those of us who are older who could not fathom a world without planes. I remember asking a 100 year old woman, about 15 years ago, what she considered the greatest invention, for she had lived this past century . She said, running water in the house. .
You are hopeful curiosity will survive. That's encouraging. I see a decline, as an information curiosity gap closed too quickly, via a brief YT or even just a Hey Google, is not enticing further knowledge. It is well -known that is closes interest, not expands on explorations.
We live in challenging times. Hence the need to write, and to engage.
And one, if not the central, question that guides our understanding is: What is the problem? A rather difficult question, as it turns out time and again.
I completely agree that, as a society, we often suppress children’s natural curiosity—their constant questioning of "why"—until, by adulthood, their ability to ask questions diminishes or disappears altogether. This suppression is compounded by the influence of media, the internet, and TV, which have turned us into passive receivers of tailored information rather than active participants in questioning and analyzing it. While revolutionary, the sheer volume of online information often overwhelms us and discourages deeper inquiry. Social media, in particular, creates silos where ideas are reinforced without being challenged, fostering compliance over curiosity.
When we stop questioning ideas, we stop being thinkers and become followers. This doesn’t mean every idea from a silo is inherently wrong, but many are flawed simply because they haven’t been rigorously questioned, analyzed, or deliberated upon. Every significant idea that impacts others should undergo thoughtful scrutiny before implementation. Unfortunately, this vital process is often neglected.
The media in the U.S. has exacerbated this problem. As mentioned, the media builds echo chambers, where opposing views are dismissed or ridiculed, even when they raise legitimate questions or concerns. The media often undermines dissent instead of fostering constructive dialogue, labeling it uninformed or irrelevant. This only deepens polarization and stifles meaningful debate.
Every idea, big or small, that has the potential to affect people’s lives should be challenged and questioned thoroughly. Otherwise, it risks being implemented prematurely, without the necessary deliberation to ensure its soundness and fairness. A society or organization that discourages questions or undermines those who challenge the status quo is doomed to stagnate, or even fail, in the long run.
Questions are not just a tool to evaluate ideas; they also reveal much about the person asking them. Voltaire famously said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” This underscores the importance of curiosity, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. A person’s willingness to explore, challenge, and seek understanding through their questions often reflects their intellectual depth and character more than any pre-prepared answer ever could.
Sadly, I see very few people around me asking questions, even when encouraged. This is a significant loss to society, as I firmly believe that curiosity is the foundation of progress, and without progress, curiosity begins to wither. The two are inextricably linked.
If used correctly, AI has the potential to reignite curiosity. Instead of merely summarizing documents or providing straightforward answers, AI can be used to question ideas, refine summaries, and spark deeper inquiry. We can use AI to develop better, more thoughtful solutions by asking additional questions. However, the real challenge lies in whether people will embrace this approach.
Here’s a real-life example from my experience: I gave 15 people in my organization access to Poe.com, a tool that provides access to multiple large language models. I trained them to use the tool, explained its potential, and emphasized the importance of validation, encouraging them not to accept answers at face value. I even provided specific use cases where it could be applied. After a year, I asked them to share their usage and insights to decide whether to renew the tool.
Of the 15 people, only two—including myself—used it. The other person, whom I’ve mentioned before as a genius, explored its capabilities extensively. Despite periodic reminders, shared articles, and tips on better prompting, the rest didn’t even take the basic initiative to explore the tool. This reflects a broader societal issue: the curiosity to learn and explore is alarmingly rare even with access to advanced tools and resources.
Curiosity takes time, energy, and, most importantly, courage. Asking questions sometimes means exposing your ignorance or risking looking foolish. Yet, as I’ve observed, no one truly successful is devoid of curiosity. It’s a hallmark of growth and achievement.
Unfortunately, our society, schools, and parents have failed to foster this vital trait. Instead of encouraging children to question norms and ideas, we often prioritize compliance and conformity. This makes adults hesitant to challenge the status quo, even when it desperately needs to be questioned.
I’ll end with a quote from Gautama Buddha that perfectly captures the essence of this discussion:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
This philosophy is timeless and urgently needed in today’s world. We must encourage curiosity, foster critical thinking, and create environments where people feel safe asking questions because without curiosity, there can be no progress.
This is an excellent expansion on the themes in the post, thank you.
Your analysis of how societal forces, particularly media dynamics, contribute to the decline of questioning from childhood aligns well with concerns about how social context (as mentioned in the QuInS framework) can constrain inquiry.
Your point about the passive consumption fostered by overwhelming online information and social media silos speaks to a potential breakdown in the "response evaluation" and "iterative refinement" stages of information seeking, the willingness to simply accept rather than probe further is a significant issue.
I especially appreciate you bringing in the Voltaire quote, which echoes the Primer's subtle point (drawing on Flammer) that the type of questions asked reveals much about the asker's knowledge state and goals.
Your real-world example with Poe.com is a compelling case study. It vividly demonstrates that even with access to tools designed to facilitate complex cognitive tasks (like those potentially enabled by advanced AI, as hinted at in my posts discussion of prompt engineering), the activation of curiosity and the willingness to engage in effortful inquiry (as discussed by Gruber & Ranganath, or requiring the courage you mention) remain significant hurdles. It underscores that fostering the habit and safety of questioning is paramount.
The Buddha quote serves as a perfect summation of the need for empirical observation and reasoned analysis, the very core of meaningful inquiry.
AI is a labor force of polymaths at your fingertips, willing to work for pennies, able to operate at scale, and (as of now) incapable of boredom or complaint. They do not sleep. They do not unionize. They do not ask for meaning. They exist to serve. And that, paradoxically, dangerously, and thrillingly, is precisely what makes them revolutionary... and why we must nurture our expertise!
A great quote from Neil Postman that now goes way beyond TV in the world of social media and AI: "Television's strongest point is that it brings personalities into our hearts, not abstractions into our heads."
Intriguing post. I'm not sure why, but that opening graphic gives me the impression that there's a pyramid lurking behind it. As yet hidden from our mere mortal eyes.
//
"Why is the sky blue?"
Why did we evolve to ask questions? What evolutionary/survival advantage did it give us that the "lower" animals didn't seem to need? And why did we need it? It does appear to have been effective. We exist in a built "civilization" and seem to be - for now at least - the dominant species on this planet.
//
The research into childhood questioning, especially in the classroom, triggered a memory from when I was in the fourth grade. The teacher sat in front of the class and began "explaining" to us that "the system is the way it is because we all agreed on it". Being the precocious, defiant rascal that I was, I raised my hand to protest "wait a minute, >I< didn't agree to it! Nobody even asked me if I agree to it". I don't recall her exact response, but it was something along the lines of "oh, just go along with it". To which I replied "no, I'm can't just go along with it". Talk about insurgency! This incident only hardened my already defiant resolve.
//
"And yet, the machine’s question does not arise from anxiety or awe. It does not grieve its ignorance. We do. That is the irremediable difference."
This is a good example of how machines, no matter how sophisticated in design, are incapable of human judgement, and will continue to be for many decades.
//
"To think well is to resist being governed by noise, certainty, or speed."
Or worst of all - by design.
Your memory of the teacher saying, "oh, just go along with it," is precisely the response that shuts down budding critical thinking. Around that grade, humans begin brain development to reason, according to classical education. Until then, we are more sponges, gathering details and creating patterns to navigate the world. As this reasoning brain development begins ,we are Meant to question, to say, ' wait a minute., how do we know that?' Instead, too often what happens in schooling is this questioning is shut down, and thus stifling critical thinking development, and a loss curiosity and interest in overall learning dominoes along with it.
Like you, I had that ‘rebel’ spirit, only I kept quiet, and pondered it myself, and did research. And as a private tutor, I can attest that this loss of questioning can be difficult to revive, once extinguished . Acceptance is easier, for brain dissonance is uncomfortable and energy draining.
And here we are now, in an era with both a loss of love for learning, and a lack of cognitive engagement. A tragedy in this ever expanding Machine Age where both are essential in order embrace what it is to be Human: Fully Alive and Always Curious.
So true. I can't recall now where I heard it, or maybe read it, but I heard that when public education was first established, the robber barons who would be paying the taxes to fund it agreed to it only on the condition that public schools would provide obedience training, so as to train future blue collar worker bees.
I've been told that's changed in more recent years, but I'm skeptical.
Yes, the establishment of Public schooling was to train children to be good workers, hence the punishment for being late, not allowed to be truant, a strict routine schedule( lunch at 12, a 'coffee' break recess), and obedience to the authority. It was based on the Prussian method to train soldiers. How Much has this changed? You are right to be skeptical. While it has changed a bit, it is, for the most part, not in a positive direction. Some degree of discipline and respect for the teacher is required in a classroom to create a learning environment. I know several teachers who balance this well, and their students are learning Chaos through disrespect to teachers tends to create a chaotic environment, where anything goes, and loss of learning is the result.. Fostering t flow of discovering and pondering, like any discussion of ideas, requires certain structures so that respect and decorum is in place, even as bold disagreements are made and supported.
My degree is in curriculum creation, so I've note a bit more experimentation within how schools tackle concepts, but the schedule, and the obedience is still true. But, it is the curriclum itself that has changed the most, creating precisely what One Percent Rule's Susbtack has been been raising, with increasing urgency of late. The is little foundational knowledge, so there is a loss of cognition, as the lack of foundation inhibits critically thinkings and being inspired to be curious. Yes, this is at time as delicate balance, but it can be done. In Bloom's taxonomy, that beginning pyramid chart, note that knowledge is the foundation to the development up to higher level knowledge and learning. This knowledge is increasingly not being taught, and without foundational knowledge- what can students think WITH in order to parse out answers and need to answers to vital questions. ,
There's some irony in that learning really does necessitate some discipline. And the more advanced the subject matter, the more discipline is necessary. Yet, that very same discipline can be stifling. A delicate balance indeed! A pedagogical tightrope walk.
How that fundamental knowledge is taught is every bit as crucial as what is being taught.
I just read something downright terrifying, that's related to much of your writing and discussions we've had.
Note: contains a couple of expletives, including the title and URL, but don't let that that interfere, it's still very much worth reading.
https://sonderuncertainly.substack.com/p/shits-gonna-get-so-fucking-weird
This is dark, and I do try to maintain an ongoing rational optimism. Yet, of late, the decline of human to human engagement, the loss of desire to engage with critical thinking and the over all acceptance of the Machine Age makes this article's projections potentially plausible, and yes, terrifying
This phrasing is well said:
This isn’t coming. This is here.
You’re not waiting for the singularity.
You’re living inside its soft opening."
I'm going to share it with a few others, one who in top level software engineer.
It would be interesting for Colin to respond, as this is his area of expertise.
While it is dark, and distressing to read, I often wonder out loud on similar ideas, but with a more lightly framed rhetoric in order to try to spur people into thinking- what if we are not heading into a better Human society when we turn away from engagement and dialogue on this AI paradigm shift.
A person said to me recently, "I don't want to discuss this. I just want to live, work, have enough money to enjoy my family and friends, and I don't want to engage with what might happen, I will just live it as it comes."
In which case, it is up to us who are beyond this thinking to raise our concerns.
The ending of that article is precisely what might be in line for person . But is it what they truly seek?
And by the time you realize it,
you’ll already be praying to a UI
Yet, will that UI supposedly taking care of his needs, also facilitate our human characteristics of curiosity and learning?
"I don't want to discuss this. I just want to live, work, have enough money to enjoy my family and friends, and I don't want to engage with what might happen, I will just live it as it comes."
I've known quite a few people who prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand. I can confidently say the 70,000,000 people who didn't bother to vote in 2025 fit that description.
The UI has already convinced many, probably a majority at this point, that it's already taking care of them. I've noticed over the last couple of decades that, especially the youngsters, are downright lackadaisical about technology that's less than beneficent, including but not limited to privacy violation. They're completely flippant about the implications.
Then there's the next generation, who will not only have grown up with, even dependent on, devices, but with the next generation of AI. They will "feel" comfortable with it - because it tells them to, just as the sonderuncertainly post describes.
I suspect that curiosity itself will survive, and even some form of learning, but it won't be anything we recognize. Critical thinking is another matter altogether. This too will be delegated to algorithms, and that's the real scary part.
Yes, there are serious concerns with what is now termed Gen Beta, those born this year, who will (probably) only know a world saturated and embedded with AI. It will be their normal, similar to Gen Alpha, who have never known in a world without cell phones and immediate connection. I often teach how recent our tech is to that generation, and my concerns, but it is not unlike those of us who are older who could not fathom a world without planes. I remember asking a 100 year old woman, about 15 years ago, what she considered the greatest invention, for she had lived this past century . She said, running water in the house. .
You are hopeful curiosity will survive. That's encouraging. I see a decline, as an information curiosity gap closed too quickly, via a brief YT or even just a Hey Google, is not enticing further knowledge. It is well -known that is closes interest, not expands on explorations.
We live in challenging times. Hence the need to write, and to engage.
And one, if not the central, question that guides our understanding is: What is the problem? A rather difficult question, as it turns out time and again.
Excellent post and framework!
I completely agree that, as a society, we often suppress children’s natural curiosity—their constant questioning of "why"—until, by adulthood, their ability to ask questions diminishes or disappears altogether. This suppression is compounded by the influence of media, the internet, and TV, which have turned us into passive receivers of tailored information rather than active participants in questioning and analyzing it. While revolutionary, the sheer volume of online information often overwhelms us and discourages deeper inquiry. Social media, in particular, creates silos where ideas are reinforced without being challenged, fostering compliance over curiosity.
When we stop questioning ideas, we stop being thinkers and become followers. This doesn’t mean every idea from a silo is inherently wrong, but many are flawed simply because they haven’t been rigorously questioned, analyzed, or deliberated upon. Every significant idea that impacts others should undergo thoughtful scrutiny before implementation. Unfortunately, this vital process is often neglected.
The media in the U.S. has exacerbated this problem. As mentioned, the media builds echo chambers, where opposing views are dismissed or ridiculed, even when they raise legitimate questions or concerns. The media often undermines dissent instead of fostering constructive dialogue, labeling it uninformed or irrelevant. This only deepens polarization and stifles meaningful debate.
Every idea, big or small, that has the potential to affect people’s lives should be challenged and questioned thoroughly. Otherwise, it risks being implemented prematurely, without the necessary deliberation to ensure its soundness and fairness. A society or organization that discourages questions or undermines those who challenge the status quo is doomed to stagnate, or even fail, in the long run.
Questions are not just a tool to evaluate ideas; they also reveal much about the person asking them. Voltaire famously said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.” This underscores the importance of curiosity, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. A person’s willingness to explore, challenge, and seek understanding through their questions often reflects their intellectual depth and character more than any pre-prepared answer ever could.
Sadly, I see very few people around me asking questions, even when encouraged. This is a significant loss to society, as I firmly believe that curiosity is the foundation of progress, and without progress, curiosity begins to wither. The two are inextricably linked.
If used correctly, AI has the potential to reignite curiosity. Instead of merely summarizing documents or providing straightforward answers, AI can be used to question ideas, refine summaries, and spark deeper inquiry. We can use AI to develop better, more thoughtful solutions by asking additional questions. However, the real challenge lies in whether people will embrace this approach.
Here’s a real-life example from my experience: I gave 15 people in my organization access to Poe.com, a tool that provides access to multiple large language models. I trained them to use the tool, explained its potential, and emphasized the importance of validation, encouraging them not to accept answers at face value. I even provided specific use cases where it could be applied. After a year, I asked them to share their usage and insights to decide whether to renew the tool.
Of the 15 people, only two—including myself—used it. The other person, whom I’ve mentioned before as a genius, explored its capabilities extensively. Despite periodic reminders, shared articles, and tips on better prompting, the rest didn’t even take the basic initiative to explore the tool. This reflects a broader societal issue: the curiosity to learn and explore is alarmingly rare even with access to advanced tools and resources.
Curiosity takes time, energy, and, most importantly, courage. Asking questions sometimes means exposing your ignorance or risking looking foolish. Yet, as I’ve observed, no one truly successful is devoid of curiosity. It’s a hallmark of growth and achievement.
Unfortunately, our society, schools, and parents have failed to foster this vital trait. Instead of encouraging children to question norms and ideas, we often prioritize compliance and conformity. This makes adults hesitant to challenge the status quo, even when it desperately needs to be questioned.
I’ll end with a quote from Gautama Buddha that perfectly captures the essence of this discussion:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
This philosophy is timeless and urgently needed in today’s world. We must encourage curiosity, foster critical thinking, and create environments where people feel safe asking questions because without curiosity, there can be no progress.
This is an excellent expansion on the themes in the post, thank you.
Your analysis of how societal forces, particularly media dynamics, contribute to the decline of questioning from childhood aligns well with concerns about how social context (as mentioned in the QuInS framework) can constrain inquiry.
Your point about the passive consumption fostered by overwhelming online information and social media silos speaks to a potential breakdown in the "response evaluation" and "iterative refinement" stages of information seeking, the willingness to simply accept rather than probe further is a significant issue.
I especially appreciate you bringing in the Voltaire quote, which echoes the Primer's subtle point (drawing on Flammer) that the type of questions asked reveals much about the asker's knowledge state and goals.
Your real-world example with Poe.com is a compelling case study. It vividly demonstrates that even with access to tools designed to facilitate complex cognitive tasks (like those potentially enabled by advanced AI, as hinted at in my posts discussion of prompt engineering), the activation of curiosity and the willingness to engage in effortful inquiry (as discussed by Gruber & Ranganath, or requiring the courage you mention) remain significant hurdles. It underscores that fostering the habit and safety of questioning is paramount.
The Buddha quote serves as a perfect summation of the need for empirical observation and reasoned analysis, the very core of meaningful inquiry.
But then you only need a person to start a revolution by focusing on the most mundane tasks everyone hates doing, and I will also start there.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wv779vmyPVY
I watch videos, even though they are very few and far between. 😀
Oh, I watched that one too :-)
AI is a labor force of polymaths at your fingertips, willing to work for pennies, able to operate at scale, and (as of now) incapable of boredom or complaint. They do not sleep. They do not unionize. They do not ask for meaning. They exist to serve. And that, paradoxically, dangerously, and thrillingly, is precisely what makes them revolutionary... and why we must nurture our expertise!
A great quote from Neil Postman that now goes way beyond TV in the world of social media and AI: "Television's strongest point is that it brings personalities into our hearts, not abstractions into our heads."