I keep hearing about the value of a mentor (Tyler Cowen talks about this a lot), or at the very least a strong community - this is not new information, but maybe I'm just actually listening now?

In trying to be an optimist, here is a take of how AI will positively help folks like me achieve the benefits of a mentor/community without actually having one.

I am an outsider in academia and bleeding edge tech. I also have parental responsibilities which limit my ability to take on new risks and join new communities - these things are possible, but take much more work and sacrifice. As such, I have a thirst for questioning and understanding that is unmet - and there is no clear path to getting a mentor or community to satisfy this need...yet. This is where AI will help folks like me.

As an aside, I've come to the realization that the most stimulating job for me may have been in academia, where in theory your objective is to generate as much new knowledge as possible - and the ability to engage with others (as mentors in addition to colleagues) on a continuous basis is encouraged and stands out as a remarkable concept[1].

Bicycle for the mind

This idea is almost cliche now, but the introduction of Deep Research tools has revitalized the idea of AI can actually be a bicycle for the mind. For example, as a Canadian, I am frustrated by the Trump administration's threat on Canada's sovereignty. But as someone who needs to know the nuance of why we find ourselves in this position (ie. unmet defense spending according to our NATO agreements), using a tool like Perplexity's Deep Research (I have not paid for OpenAI's yet) to easily, quickly and reliably[2] synthesise information on a topic for which I am not an expert in is invaluable. In 5 minutes, I now have a much more nuanced understanding about why Canada is being targeted[3]. The key to using AI as "bicycles" and not as crutches is having the drive to ask pertinent questions, and then synthesising it with you existing knowledge to generate your own insights and expand your understanding.

Lack of Community

AI is not a complete substitute for a stimulating community of deep thinkers. However, like most things in life, the idea of an intellectually stimulating community that you consistently and frequently engage with is unrealistic. An AI will never dominate the conversation, get emotional, look at their phone while you're talking, hear but not listen, refuse to admit they are wrong, cancel you for being wrong or challenging norms, stand you up[4] - all human idiosyncracies[5] that tend to do that derail the usefulness of the exercise. Therefore I am of the opinion that in the absence of such communities - which is everyone, this optimal community doesn't exist - we must use AI in some capacity to better ourselves and exercise our critical thinking muscles.

Generate content to access mentors and communities

If a community is still so important, how does a pleb (outsider, commoner) get one? I'm not sure - I am weirdly timid posting and contributing online. However I suspect that in addition to overcoming this fear, my guess is that putting this content out there will somehow lead me to finding these people I need to meet. I have faith.

Future of engaging thought

My hope is that the future of engaging thought is a mixture of AI and human discussions. Both are necessary - the AI is the around-the-clock access to differing topics and points of view, but humans add the beauty and nuance and messiness of being human. I am fully convinced that AI telling an anecdote about a human experience provides no value to me - I need to hear from humans themselves about anything that ultimately concerns us. However I have come around to the idea that our new reality is a mixture of AI and human knowledge, and that is a net positive. We just cannot rely on one exclusively over the other in order for us to grow.

Footnotes

1. In practice, this is an ideal and not a real state. In reality, focusing on a very narrow topic doesn't allow for much exploration outside of your niche area. What I am imagining is a field like Philosophy, where the entire purpose is to challenge known assumptions of why things are - here, consistently speaking to colleagues is immensely rewarding in my opinion.
2. No, these tools are not reliable, where reliability may be defined as sufficient for a thesis or legal document. However their overall sentiment and direction is broadly accurate on a topic for which there is a plethora of public information.
3. This is by no means the only reason - Trump is a bully, first and foremost. But this is the one reason of the many listed for which we are actually at fault. The Arctic is a weak point and we have underspent on defence.
4. Unless you don't have internet/power
5. I'm not advocating for avoiding speaking with actual humans because of these quirks, but rather emphasize that AI has its place in our personal development because it doesn't have these tendencies.