The Future Belongs to the Weird
In an essay that traces the history of societal pressure to conform, George Strakhov argues that the rational strategy for most people is shifting from blending in to embracing one's inner weirdness. As AI and robots automate predictability, the value of being normal is evaporating. The author contends that the most valuable contribution humans can now make is not reliability but the unique, unexpected information they bring—making weirdness, for the first time, a profitable strategy for the majority.
When normalcy is being rapidly automated, the relative value of weirdness is shooting upwards.
- GMoromisato
It's not about being weird--it's about change vs. stasis.
The problem with weird is that not everyone can be weird, almost by definition. Moreover, people get things done collectively, and for that to work, the group (at whatever size) has to push in the same direction. Pushing in the wrong direction just to be weird will cause the group to fail.
Instead, I think, the future belongs to those who help change the present.
At the limit, any existing process can be done by AI, given a goal. What AI cannot do (and must not do) is come up with new goals. Coming up with new goals must always remain a human prerogative.
We don't need humans to work the assembly line--we need humans to make the assembly line better. AI can't do that alone because it cannot define "better". Humans must decide what "better" means. Do we want the assembly line to be faster or use fewer resources? Should it continue to produce this product or work on a new one? Should we build a bigger assembly line or turn the whole thing into a park?
As long as the world keeps changing, we will need humans to direct that change. People who fear change, who want everything to stay the same will have the hardest time in the future. Those are the people who will be replaced by AI.
The future belongs to those who change the present.
- altho123
>Unusually weak? They will not want to feed you. Unusually strong? They will send you to fight an impossible war. Unusually clever? They will accuse you of witchcraft and burn you at the stake. Yes, there were some exceptions (for example, "freaks" kept as curiosities by the kings), but the general rule for the vast majority of the population was: don't be weird, or get killed.
To me that sounds like a very post-romantic interpretation of the past, where everything that happened before now, the enlightened times, was savage,cruel and retrograde. It's my understanding that things were a lot more subtle than that and that's a very simplistic approximation. I don't think Da Vinci, Vauban Euclid or Grosseteste were burnt to the stake, not even Galileo was.
- Animats
That was a Millennial generation thing. Back in 2002, "Be Your Own Brand: A Breakthrough Formula for Standing Out from the Crowd"
by Speak and McNally, was arguing for that. They pushed heavy self-promotion. That got us the "brogrammer", "move fast and break things", and startups that tried to buy market share with venture capital.
- Arubis
The future of ~2000 belonged to the weird, too. We commodified all that. Anything briefly and seemingly "quirky" is fodder for branding. Or you can go a little further than quirky, and someone like RFK will want to put you on a list.
- forestrywat
We sure do punish people for being weird, and it's definitely seeing an increase. Ask any gay, trans, disabled, neurodiverse, furry, anarchist, or other outsider group whether life has gotten easier lately.
Guarantee it's almost (but not quite) universally no.