Should You Make Stone Tools?

This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.

So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*

"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"

If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.

"What if I think this was a mistake?"

For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.

you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.

If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.

* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)

1. Thesis & Relevance

Stone tools shaped human evolution for over two million years. Today, most of us interact mainly with frictionless, glass-based tools (phones, laptops), which may not train the same circuits.

My claim: By not engaging in toolmaking, we may be missing important “nutrients” of cognition, patience, and social learning.

This matters for LessWrong because it’s not just about archaeology — it’s about how tools shape minds. If stone tools rewired us once, then our digital and AI tools are doing the same now. Understanding that lineage can sharpen our reasoning about modern risks and opportunities.

2. Stone Tools as Feedback Loops

Stone tools were not just objects. They created a feedback loop:

Tools refined our hands.

Hands reshaped our brains.

Brains enabled foresight.

Foresight reinforced culture and teaching.

The Acheulean handaxe wasn’t just a blade. It was an early cognitive training environment — a module that installed patience, iteration, and precision into human minds.

3. What We Might Be Missing

I suspect we’ve lost at least three “nutrients” by not doing this anymore:

Sensorimotor nutrition – Knapping trained touch, vision, and error correction.

Cognitive nutrition – It rewarded patience, foresight, and iteration.

Social nutrition – Teaching toolmaking built pedagogy and cultural memory.

Without these, our environment may be mismatched. I’d put at least 60% probability on the claim that this underlies some modern issues: short attention spans, low tolerance for failure, fragmented learning.

4. Counterarguments & Replies

Counterargument 1: Modern tools (coding, design, games) also train cognition.

Reply: True. But many of these tools remove resistance. They’re optimized for speed and efficiency. Resistance — like stone that shatters if struck wrong — was a key part of the training signal.

Counterargument 2: Evolution already integrated the effects of stone tools; we no longer need them.

Reply: Possibly. But three million years of constant shaping doesn’t just vanish in 200 years. More likely, we’re experiencing the equivalent of a nutrient deficiency. Like missing fiber in a diet, it doesn’t kill you immediately, but it erodes resilience.

5. The Archeo-Cognition Hypothesis

Instead of asking “why do quirks persist?”, it’s more useful to ask: how did each tool epoch rewire us?

Fire → digestion + circadian rhythm.

Stone tools → motor cortex + patience.

Writing → externalized memory.

Digital code → recursion + abstraction.

AI → planetary-scale cognition.

From this angle, stone tools weren’t quaint — they were version 1.0 of external intelligence. AI is the latest patch in that lineage.

6. Practical Lessons

So, should we literally make stone tools today? Maybe not. But we should ask: what is our modern handaxe?

Individually: seek resistance. Do woodworking, ceramics, instruments, robotics — anything that makes your hands and mind wrestle with reality.

Culturally: build “modern lithic fields” — fablabs, hackerspaces, community workshops where craft and skill are learned by doing.

We don’t need to return to the Stone Age. But we do need to deliberately design the “handaxe of 2025” — tools that challenge and shape us as powerfully as flint once did.

7. From Flint to Fusion

Our ancestors shaped stone. Our parents debugged code. We are weaving distributed intelligence.

This isn’t nostalgia — it’s a pattern. Each epoch of tools becomes food for the mind.

Neglect this, and we risk cognitive malnutrition.

Embrace it, and even Dyson spheres and singularities will rest on the sharp edge of a stone.

8. Conclusion

Stone tools are not trivia. They are the Rosetta Stone of human cognition.

You should make stone tools — not because you need them, but because stone tools made you. Forgetting them risks forgetting how to make the future.

Discussion Questions

What is today’s “modern handaxe” — the tool shaping cognition most deeply right now?

Are AI agents a continuation of the stone tool lineage, or a rupture?

Could tactile crafts help reduce modern problems like anxiety or short attention spans?

What risks come with designing new “stone tools” that shape minds in ways we can’t reverse?

Disclosure

This essay was drafted with some AI assistance, but I curated, edited, and finalized the arguments myself. I take full responsibility for the reasoning and framing.

LESSWRONG
LW