I find one of the most unsettling things about 2025-2026 is how little people seem to agree with this point you're making.
It's like this hyper-reductive thinking where it's all just "if the the outcome is the same, so what!?" has just metastasized and everyone is false-equivalence-ing their way into hell
It makes me want to scream. like, beauty is not arbitrary, not everything can be homogenized into content paté, that does not make the world better. I'm sure really smart people will argue i'm wrong for some reason but it just makes me feel so sad
Actually, it is more human, because there are humans involved at each level. Doesn't matter if you think the music sucks, it's definitionally more human than AI music.
In fighting games, this is exactly the way "scrubs" think. They lose and appeal to some vague notion of fairness to avoid confronting the reality - they lost!
It's possible the demo is faked, and I'm skeptical.
But I also don't think the speed is really the point of a device like this. Getting out a device, pressing keys or tapping on it, and putting it away again, those attentional costs of using some device... I know something like basic notetaking would feel really different to me if I was able to just do the thing in the demo at high accuracy instead.
That's a big if, though - the accuracy would have to be high for it to really be useful, and the video is probably best-case clips.
It's crazy how appealing the irl version you mentioned is, compared to the online version. Looking through a book, meeting people and sharing recipes, etc. The world you're interacting with actually cares about you.
Feels like the net can't ever have that now.
Does Pro fix the fundamental issues he describes? I would think it would have to do that to "completely invalidate his opinion", rather than just be better than the base model.
they weren't all that intelligent? from where i'm sitting, looking at the difficulty that extremely intelligent people have trying to design robotics that perform the most trivial of human tasks, they must have been pretty damn intelligent.
even if you just assume that the intelligence involved was just responsible for fine-tuning the initial system such that life can come about, that seems to be a type of creative genius that we can't even begin to fathom.
i think asking whether there is 'intelligence' behind the unfurling of reality might be the wrong question, but it's also laughably anthropocentric to say the mindboggling proliferation of living forms doesn't have at least the appearance of genius design, even if it may be designoid.