I believe that collectively we passed that point long before the onset of LLMs. I have a feeling that throughout the human history vast amounts of people ware happy to outsource their thinking and even pay to do so. We just used to call those arrangements religions.

▲

latexr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Religions may outsource opinions on morality, but no one went to their spiritual leader to ask about the Pythagorean theorem or the population of Zimbabwe.

	▲	cwnyth 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, now, that's not actually true: [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

peyton 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s a bit cynical. Religion is more like a technology. It was continuously invented to solve problems and increase capacity. Newer religions superseded older and survived based on productive and coercive supremacy.

▲

noduerme 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If religion is a technology, it's inarguably one that prevented the development of a lot of other technologies for long periods of time. Whether that was a good thing is open to interpretation.

▲

kjkjadksj 6 hours ago | parent [-]

On the other hand it produced a lot of related technology. Calendars, mathematics, writing, agricultural practices, government and economic systems. Most of this stuff emerged as an effort to document and proliferate spiritual ideas.

▲

noduerme 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I see your point, but I'd say religion's main technological purpose is as a storage system for the encoding of other technologies (and social patterns) into rituals, the reasons for which don't need to be understood; to the point that it actively discourages examination of their reasons, as what we could call an error-checking protocol. So a religion tends to freeze those technologies in the time at the point of inception, and to treat any reexamining of them as heresy. Calendars are useful for iron age farming, but you can't get past a certain point as a civilization if you're unwilling to reconsider your position that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, for example.

	▲	throw4847285 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is ahistorical, whiggish nonsense. The actual world is not a game of Civilization II.