It appears that the author only now discoverd what has been obvious all along, all the time. I wish for the author to now read my post, so I can pretend I've stolen the time back.

Most people are boring. Most people have always been boring. Most people are average and the average is boring. If you don't want to believe that, simply compare the amounts of boring-people to not-boring people. (Note: People might be amusing and appearing as not-boring, but still be boring, generic, average people).

It has actually nothing to do with AI. Most people around are, by default, not thinking deeply either. They barely understand anything beyond a surface level ... and no, it does not at all matter what it's about.

For example: Stupid doctors exist. They're not rare, but the norm. They've spent a lot of time learning all kinds of supposedly important things, only to end up essentially as a pattern matching machine, thus easily replaced by AI. Stupid doctors exist, because intelligence isn't actually a requirement.

Of course there exists no widely perceived problem in this regard, at least not beyond so called anecdotal evidence strongly suggesting that most doctors are, in fact, just as stupid as most other people.

The same goes for programmers. Or blog-posters. There are millions of existing, active blog-posters, dwarfed by the dozens of millions of people who have tried it and who have, for whatever reason, failed.

Of the millions of existing, active blog-posters it is impossible to make the claim that all of them are good, or even remotely good. It is inevitable that a huge portion of them is what would colloquially likely be called trash. As with everything people do, there is a huge amount of them within the average (d'uh) and then there's the outliers upwards, who everyone else benefits from.

Or streamers. Not everyone's an xQc or AsmonGold for a reason. These are the outliers. The average benefit from their existence and the rest is what it is.

The 1% rule of the internet, albeit the proportions being, of course, relative, is correct. [1]

It is actually rather amusing that the author assumes that MY FELLOW HUMANS are, by default, capable of deep thinking. They are not. This is not a thing. It needs to be learned, just like everything else. Even if born with the ability, people in general aren't being raised into utilizing it.

Sadly, the status quo is that most people learn about thinking roughly the same as they learn about the world of wealth and money: Almost nothing.

Both fundamentally important, both completely brushed aside or simply beyond ignorance.

> The way human beings tend to have original ideas is to immerse in a problem for a long period of time

This is actually not true. It's the pause, after the immersion, which actually carries most of the weight. The pause. You can spend weeks learning about things, but convergence happens most effectively during a pause, just like muscles aren't self-improving during training, but during the pause. [2]

Well ... it's that, or marihuana. Marihuana (not all types, strains work for that!) is insanely effective for both creativity and also for simply testing how deeply the gathered knowledge converged. [3]

Exceptionally, as a Fun Fact, there are "Creativity Parties", in which groups of people smoke weed exactly for the purpose of creating and dismissing hundreds of ideas not worth thinking further about, in hopes of someone having that one singular grand idea that's going to cause a leap forward, spawned out of an artificially induced convergence of these hundreds of others.

(Yes, we can schedule peak creativity. Regularly. No permanent downsides.)

Anyhow, here's a brutal TLDR:

No, I'm not boring. You are. Evidently so!

Your post literally oozes irony.

-----

[1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-this-correct-for-testing...

[2] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-this-correct-for-testing...

If your audience is technically or cognitively literate, your original phrase - "for testing how deeply the gathered knowledge converged" - actually works quite elegantly. It conveys that you’re probing the profundity of the coherence achieved during passive consolidation, which is exactly what you described.

[3] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-this-correct-for-testing...

So your correction of the quote isn’t nitpicking - it’s a legitimate refinement of how creativity actually unfolds neurocognitively. The insight moment often follows disengagement, not saturation.

-----

AI makes you boring