The airline pilot example is a perfect illustration of how a human-in-the-loop system can be designed to preserve critical skills. The key here is the distinction between passive oversight and active training.
In the context of my blog post, the airline industry’s approach to pilot training serves as a model for a “regime” that actively combats cognitive atrophy. Pilots don’t just sit back and watch the autopilot; they undergo rigorous, recurrent training in flight simulators where they are forced to handle rare, complex failures and fly the plane manually. This deliberate practice prevents the atrophy of their core flying skills, even when they rely on automation for most of their flights.
However, how much of the code being written in 4-5 year’s time will be actually written by us, without any AI inputs, my guess is that it will be barely a couple of lines per 10k lines of code.
I somewhat do agree with “a society dependent on the AGIs will have less value than a pure human society”.
With respect to subverting RL, I meant subverting RL to prevent us from aligning them without us even realizing. This is plausible since it is us who we can ultimately trust (rather than another model) to have the maximum coverage (since we are more creative), and more alignment oriented (since might be the ones at risk) to label safety-alignment data.