LLM engages with UI in a pragmatic way. It doesn't care about aesthetics or structural complexity, it doesn't care about latency or tactility. It doesnt have anywhere close to similar preferences and reasons for why it Vs a human being would and wouldn't click on or engage with something on a UI.
Do you really see no difference in the way a hollow algorithm interacts with UI vs how a person would go about interacting with UI?
I think the goal you describe is categorically wrong. If what you say was the case - billionaires wouldn't exist.
Capitalism's primary focus is production. The more you produce, the more you are rewarded. Quantity has better profit margins than quality. So the winner is someone who can produce the most and reach the most customers.
Digital products happen to be the best for it. They are, relatively to other products, easy to scale, produce, and even easier to distribute. Quality needs to be just good enough to make a sale.
From what I know, I think intelligence evolved as a result of us being fragile relative to other animals.
Our offsprings are completely helpless for the first year. We aren't as fast, strong, or resilient as most wild animals; So we had to compensate with something. Our total weakness pushed us to use our brain to survive. For example, open confrontation without a plan, even with a pray animal like deer, would result in a total failure. Yes, we are in part endurance hunters, but no amount of endurance would help with something that's categorically faster than you. So we hunted in groups, using tools and schemes to survive.
And here we are now.
Conversations about intelligence, imo, often miss an important caveat. Humans have a unique ability of plasticity, this constant adaptation and growth that all of us are capable of in a single lifetime.
I'm of opinion that if you are capable of speaking a language, that means you are capable of learning and understanding anything. Information, ultimately, is causal relationships and compositions; The more you can see and meaningfully categorise given the circumstance, the more 'intelligent' you are; More specifically - how much can you transcend your cognitive barriers - the way things can be thought of, [permissible/assumed to be valid] modes of engagement with what you experience so to speak.
We sometimes corner ourselves into limitations to maintain a sense of comfort, validity, and alignment with what we think "actually is"; Rather than accepting and understanding things as they are without any stakes and generalisations.
Point I'm trying to make is, sometimes intelligence is stagnant due to inner dissonance, conflict, alterior to understanding motives.
Apart from complex motivations varying from person to person, things like malnutrition, and trauma that takes up cognitive bandwidth and sets limits on cognition, also affect us; What we even think of as good and bad, everything we are that we accumulate over the time of being alive - affect the way we think about what we are experiencing.
Let's not forget the effects on who you are during developmental period in womb and the circumstance of said womb (overall hormonal and chemical circumstance).
I believe, in some cases, we are eager to explain intelligence away as mostly genetic because it's easier to understand variance that way, rather than having to swift through circumstantial nuances and complexity; Sometimes as means of not changing anything about ourselves and our conduct with eachother, the way we organise; Sometimes to maintain a sense of superiority and inferiority relative to others. List goes on.
Maybe morality isn't discussed enough. People can proclaim that morality is subjective and hence less worthy of consideration or overall less important as a result of not being a constant in all people; However all of us have things we consider to be good and bad.
If people are interested in propagation of those 3 decided upon virtues, then imho it'd be a good idea to try and explain to others why these are important to aspire for.
At the moment, people share their values to each other with some form of acrimony, and expects the other to submit/change, or just hurt. It perpetuates this vicious cycle of no one being able to productively talk to each other if they disagree. I think there's mismatch on a fundamental level. A lot of spite and lack of desire to understand (some more than others).
I disagree. Frustration wouldn't come from having to care for 10-30 people, but from inadequate systems that would fail to facilitate effective care for this many people simultaneously.
Id bet if there was a reliable and effective means for 1 person to take care of 10-30 people, it wouldn't be a problem.
In summary, imho, the problem here isn't capacity to emotionally care for this many people, but means of taking care. I think the problem is we don't collectively invest enough resources (both material and cognitive) to figure out how to do something like this well.
I disagree. There's plenty of historical and present evidence of people who cared deeply for a collective of people (country, village, town, group, family).
There have been people who would risk their lives, and in some cases commit suicide in various capacities, for their country and people. There are people who go to world's most unstable places just to help people there.
A more concrete example, one of many, would be María Santos Gorrostieta Salazar[1], who had a total of 4 assassination attempts against her, with the final one eventually getting her killed, as a result of fighting organised crime. You can't tell me this person didn't care deeply for her people and country.
I think the possible cause for indifference today, especially in developed countries, is because people can afford to be indifferent with little consequence to their quality of life. You can go about your life only caring about your most immediate circle, and things will still be relatively comfortable. I speculate that it's the matter of having no need to go beyond your comfort zone apart from moral ideals. Even then, people are just fine living with a slight discomfort of not living up to their ideals, or straight up re-evaluating and adjusting them like in this post.
Maybe in other mamals and animals in general, lol.
But with humans it's a slightly different story. Our brain stays plastic for quite a while, and said plasticity declines into our "elderhood". However, we can still retain plasticity as long as we maintain intensive learning throughout our lives.
Intelligence in humans isn't static, much like ourselves. If it were static, there would be a hard cutoff point where you no longer can/would be extremely hard to learn new things (and it is indeed the case, but much, much later in life), similar to aforementioned non-human mamals and animals.
Learning is a process that can be understood and improved upon through self-reflection. Including the process of understanding itself. The way we learn and hence understand can be improved and hence elevate intelligence (granted you fulfil the requirement for being able to reflect on and compress things, much like healthy human beings can).
I think that's a bad comparison, though I see the point you are making.
Height is determined by your genes, yet its also affected by your environment during your development.
Something similar could be said about Intelligence, though as far as I know, in reductionist terms, intelligence has a greater window for development (most of our life), and a lot more plastic than height (which is highly dependent upon your bone structure. Bones also being categorically different to our neural systems and its comprising elements).
I don't think it'd be outragous to find that your economic situation affects your developmental goals. Given how it affects how much time you spend on, and opportunities for your personal (in this case intellectual) development.
Do you really see no difference in the way a hollow algorithm interacts with UI vs how a person would go about interacting with UI?