I absolutely agree that's on the "better" side, but I'm not sure we're net positive on this one.

Yes. We survived. Do you think society has fundamentally changed for the better due to it? Or has it fundamentally contributed to things to be worse overall?

Maybe the code you strat with shouldn't be AI slop like this project.

So you didn't understand my post. Like not at all. That's really telling about just how correct I was about you.

I know you're saying this with the best of intentions, and I'm sure you're surrounded by capable, at least moderatly intelligent people because people tend to surround themselves with people like themselves. But most people are not like this. Seriously thinking this is a reasonable solution paints you as painfully naive.

That's not the incentive that caused the subprime mortgage crisis at all. Where dod you get this idea from?

The incentive that caused this was the ability for originators to easily sell loans, and the demand for such loans of nearly any quality by the aftermarket as packaged loan tranches were making good money. It's basic market dynamics once you understand the change the precipitated it.

So if I admit to multiple felonies publically I'm legally in the clear as long as other people are commiting similar felonies? What kind of logic is that?

He would be serving time.

Why hasn't Sam Altman been arrested yet?
Why is OpenAI allowed to continue to operate?
Clearly it's a criminal organization.

Honestly... Since when reshuffling in a company's upper management is of any interest to anybody other than the people working for that individual at that company?

What next? They're gonna replace Bob at accounting because he didn't use AI to format his Excel sheets?

Forty bucks lets you turn pages on a non-paper device. What a world we live in.

"by preying on vulnerable populations like children and violent or delusional adults."
They're afraid of what their own "Forlida Man"/men will end up doing. That's hilarious.

But, but how els would a pedantic /. loser be able to prove that they know more than the rest of us other than to miss the intent of what is being said in order to build a strawman that they can then use to demonstratie their supposed expertise on the subject?

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

If you think the big tent thing was from 202 we're not even talking about the same things. But you sure had a lot to say. Hope that tuckered you all out. Inreality, the Democratic party has been pulling this playbook in earnest for nearly a couple decades in its currrent form. If you can't seer that you're missing the plot I'm talking about. Which tracks because you seem to have some correct observations but are baffled about or just confidently wrong on the how and why.