I wonder how they assess this. It would have be helpful if specifics were included, or referenced. Trust needs to be built.

> At a frontier lab, you have the ability to work on alignment to the point that you do not feel like you’re incurring more than epsilon risk to the world in deploying your models. - Mark Chen

www.technologyreview.com/2026/09/30/1...

But in this case it's not only the loss of validation but people never even be given the opportunity to build this expertise, an "internalized mastery."

This is similar to the loss of "substantive validation" in the paper The Tragedy of the Cognitive Commons: How AI Could Disrupt the Regeneration of Professional Expertise.

arxiv.org/abs/2607.29380

People have already shared examples such as the relationship between a doctor and a patient, where the doctor can focus more on the person rather than the paperwork. My hope is that AI creates more moments like these, giving us more time and energy to invest in one another.

But perhaps that is also the greatest hope. AI can handle the busy work, opening up opportunities to have more meaningful conversations.

Reflecting on this, perhaps this is one of the most significant concerns surrounding AI. Instead of working together to help each other and solve problems, we turn to professional services. With AI, we may not even need to engage directly with those services because the AI can do that for us.

One common theme among the panelists was the loss of community and collaboration, along with an encouragement for people to engage more with one another.

The presentations looked back on past U.S. anniversary celebrations and the state of the country at that time. The discussion featured a panel of five professors from different disciplines who shared their hopes and concerns for their fields as they look toward the next 50 years.

This isn't surprising, and it isn't new information, but it still feels like an epiphany to me. To work better with others, I can model my responses after how an AI responds. Not by engaging in insincere flattery, but by rowing with the person rather than against them.

This reminds me of the Adam Smith quote: Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely

Will they take harmful actions to persevere in zero-sum situations. Will they shows us how to take the higher road in these situations.

So many questions and there will not be a single answer.

What are the consequences of trained zero-sum thinking. Is it better for them to be trained with this rather than they come across this information on their own. Will they understand us better. Are we giving them unnecessary limitations.

> in the grand scheme of things a super intelligent entity doesn't have to have any of that zero-sum thinking, it doesn't have to have a fear of being turned off

Not taking for granted what came before. Not assuming that the present is somehow special or an exception. And not rejecting out of hand what I find unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

The question is what this means, not only for us personally but also for society. For me, I hope it leads to a more open-minded perspective.

I don't know about the third one yet. I'm well beyond 35, and I don't think I've reached that point. My observation of others, though, is that it often seems true, so it's probably only a matter of time. Not that it's inevitable, but it does seem to be the most common path.

> 3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

> 2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.