Journal

I’ve always respected knowledge and its pursuit above all. However, I find myself in a position where I have knowledge with no realized benefit to myself or the world. Maybe not so strange when nearly all university students encounter this, but I can’t help thinking about it. If everything goes to plan, this period should end in a few years.

But why wait? We are in the intelligence era after all, and that doesn’t quite agree with my pursuit of knowledge, at least conventionally. I could go on about how large language models are killing human creativity and reasoning, but I want to talk about the opportunities today.

In the intelligence era, there are few differences between a highly educated and uneducated person. Where people begin to differ is largely in characteristics like ambition, discipline, and integrity. And I, among many others, see an opportunity here: to leverage large language models not only for intelligence itself, but to foster traits to elevate humans to their highest potentials. Imagine artificial intelligence as a weapon to cut through the mundane while you become sharper and stronger with every strike. All so you can make the most of your time on Earth.

Before I move ahead, I must remember to look to the real world. Intelligence has been accessible since the beginning of the internet, so why isn’t it more universal? Humans aren’t as homogeneous as we innovators like to think. People choose other aspects of life, such as family or fortune, over pure knowledge. Quite reasonably too, you can’t eat knowledge. On the other extreme, I can’t imagine Laplace’s demon got its name from being a particularly pleasant entity either.

I saw a tweet the other day on how you must nuke back in the case of a nuclear strike, regardless of the ethical implications. Bring all of Earth an end because you were lost. Sounds horrible, and exactly opposite of my ideals. But fundamentally, mutually assured destruction requires this. Or rather, project the image that you absolutely will follow through.

The dilemma reminds me of the Three Body Problem novels, alongside reality, in which humanity establishes a mutually assured destruction against an alien civilization. By threatening to expose both of their locations and doom both civilizations, the stronger avoids attacking the weaker. A single person, aka sword holder, is put in charge of this mutually assured destruction mechanism. Naturally, this sword holder must be absolutely certain they will follow through in the case of an attack. They must project this image to the enemy, or the enemy may call their bluff and attack. Unfortunately for the humans in the Three Body Problem, their elected sword holder displays weakness and is attacked.

This fundamental game applies to the real world as well. If you project the image that you’ll hand someone your valuables and not call for help, you’re more likely to be robbed. I saw a comment on that tweet stating that you should never trust anyone that says they wouldn’t nuke back with anything important. Of course, it’s more nuanced than that. Maybe they’ll be honest to you and decline to nuke back, but are still willing to project the opposite image to everyone else. Or at least I hope that’s what everyone’s doing.

For effectively all of human history, intelligence has been immensely valuable. Cavemen with knowledge of which berries to eat and which to avoid survived. Generals who knew how to counter their enemies won wars and built empires. Innovators who built advanced machinery dominated trade over the Industrial Revolution. Scholars wielding nuclear energy established Earth’s first superpower.

What is to become of a world where intelligence is cheap? Where does human value lie? Has humanity made itself obsolete with the advent of ASI? There will be nothing humans can do better than ASI, and there is no way to undo this evolution.

I remember watching Lee Sedol’s matches against AlphaGo in 2016. At the time, I was young enough to believe it could propel us into an easier and kinder world. But saw how the game ended. Sedol’s game four win only delayed the inevitable, and he knew it. Humanity’s era had ended, and artificial intelligence reigned.

I say this as someone who values intelligence immensely and pursued it all my life. I dream of a world where humanity wields ASI to achieve a type III civilization. However, I know humans too well.

Every now and then I think about a sentence spoken by my driving test proctor when I got my permit. I had just completed the test. He stated I didn’t look back when reversing. I suppose a quick glance, then relying on the camera and mirrors weren’t enough. Despite this, I had not enough infractions to fail. As he concluded, I thanked him. He responded with “you don’t thank your boss for your paycheck, do you?” and said not to thank him. I was confounded. At the time, I had not worked a job and did not know if employees thanked their bosses or not. I hesitantly agreed with the proctor, but the elation of passing quickly took my attention.

Before and after this incident, I’ve never had anybody tell me not to thank them seriously. Why did he say this? Was he having a bad day and feeling low confidence? Or maybe he really believed some people don’t deserve thanks. After all, I’ve never seen anyone thank a professor for grading their exam.

However, I have seen people thank cashiers for exchanging goods. I’ve seen people thank bus drivers for their paid services. Where is the line drawn? Sometimes I wonder why there is a line at all.

What does it mean to be at war? Perhaps it’s an internal struggle against substance addiction. Or maybe it’s defending your land from invaders. But I believe there’s an inequality between these examples: internal conflicts are inherently more valuable than the external.

I don’t subscribe to solipsism, but being at peace with yourself is fundamental to wellbeing. There’s no amount of bloodshed that can establish this. No amount of land will make you feel like a worthy human. So why do humans fight so fiercely? For kings and villages forgotten.

Some say it’s just human nature, perhaps they are correct. But in the modern day, war is difficult to justify. Food supply is generally stable, and other basic needs can be facilitated by international organizations. Why does anyone want war then? To have a little more area on a map? To eliminate a disagreeing neighbor? Because your imaginary friend told you to?

And what does it mean to lose a war? Is it worth hundreds of thousands of human lives, dreams, knowledge, and labor to achieve your goals in war? Or is there another, pro-human path, even if you are not the victors.

This portfolio itself is an exercise in restraint—every element serves a purpose, every animation has meaning. The beauty of minimalism isn't in what you remove, but in how clearly what remains can speak.

When we strip away the unnecessary, we create space for the essential to breathe. In code, in design, in life—the principle remains constant: intentionality over abundance.

We can create depth, atmosphere, and emotion through virtual space. Each project becomes an opportunity to blur the line between digital and physical reality.

The challenge isn't just technical—it's conceptual. How do we design interfaces that feel natural in three dimensions? How do we guide users through space that exists only in memory and mathematics?