Why? We just kill everything nowadays with missiles, bombs, and rockets-- heads of government, terrorist leaders, schools... so why are we investing in anything like this?
Seems like some kind of GI Joe fantasy that's gone on for too long.
Not sure that's true. I am by no means gifted in the sense of Terence Tao, or even people much more gifted than me but far less gifted than him, but I did well in school up to a certain point in college. I never really learned how to study until I got fairly far in my education process. I put very little effort into school up until that point. That's when I actually had to put effort in and it was quite a wake up call.
Exactly. Up to some point, you actually do well because you are smart. Then, in the middle of the game, the rules change (from your perspective), and it may catch you by surprise.
It would be much better for the gifted children to attend schools where their effort is visible since the beginning. That is, schools with other gifted children.
For example, in math, my kids didn't learn anything new during their first three years of the elementary school, because they already knew numbers and addition at kindergarten age. Yet they were forced to sit there for three years. It would have been better to give them a book to read, or a collection of interesting problems to solve.
> Exactly. Up to some point, you actually do well because you are smart.
No, you do well because you put in the effort. Even trivial effort is still effort. Sometimes it's all that's genuinely needed (quite often in fact!) and it's important to realize this - but not always, and that's important to realize as well.
> my kids didn't learn anything new during their first three years
I think it's almost always possible to revise even these 'trivial' subjects in more depth. Granted, it's hard to do this in elementary math without some kind of outside involvement - someone to explicitly introduce the nuances. Other subjects this is quite a bit easier.
I just use two browsers. On one my recommendations are truly well curated but I can’t watch a single out of place video or my feed is corrupted. The other browser is for brain rot time and it’s the Wild West.
Great point. Many Americans would prefer to buy (given) a flying car vs. build a flying car. Personally I believe there is dignity in self determination. To each their own.
Literally what's the difference between that and Siri now.
Siri can't understand or pronounce very well.
A few weeks ago Siri via Car Play responded to a text and sent it without me saying a word or radio on, and with the setting where it asks first before sending enabled. It responding "Why?" to a serious text was seriously inconvenient in the moment. I watched it happen in disbelief.
(Edit: Didn't see your last paragraph before writing the response below)
I think there is a distinction between Siri misunderstanding what was said (which you can see/hear), and Siri understanding what you said but hallucinating an answer. In both cases, you strictly have to check the result, but in the first case it's clear that you've been misunderstood.
Very similar arguments date back to at least Plato. Ancient Greek math was based in geometry and Plato argued one could never demonstrate incommensurable lengths of rope due to physical constraints. And yet incommensurable lengths exist in math. So he said the two realms are forever divided.
I think it’s modern science’s use of math that made people forget this.
Philiosophers aren't aware but Science itself and math curb-stomped most of the bullshit from philosophy and for the good.
Lovecraft captured well that feeling with Cosmic Horror. But, you know, in the 20's, 30's, 40's, scifi writters evolved. Outdated, romantic foes (specially the French and German romanticism) keep bitching over and over about the pure and 'simple' past, as if the universe had a meaning per se. And they are utterly lost. Forever.
Archimedes and Euclides won over Aristotle. Guess why. Math itself it's the Logos.
I get that philosophy was outmoded in lots of ways by modern science, but Aristotle is “the father of biology”, basically starting the discipline, so the last point is hard to understand.
What is this supposed to show exactly? Those books have been feed into LLMs for years and there's even likely specific RLHF's on extracting spells from HP.
There was a time when I put the EA-Nasir text into base64 and asked AI to convert it. Remarkably it identified the correct text but pulled the most popular translation of the text than the one I gave it.
Sucks that you got a really shitty response to your prompt. If I were you, the model provider would be receiving my complaint via clay tablet right away.
You can be sure that this was already known in the training data of PDFs, books and websites that Anthropic scraped to train Claude on; hence 'documented'. This is why tests like what the OP just did is meaningless.
Such "benchmarks" are performative to VCs and they do not ask why isn't the research and testing itself done independently but is almost always done by their own in-house researchers.
This is the “back to office” of education. It is not a one size fits all solution. There are so many remote and hybrid classes now you guys sound outdated.
Granted, I’m 62, so I’m from the old world. I attended college, and taught a couple of college classes, before the AI revolution. There was definitely a connection between learning and evaluation for most students. In fact most students preferred more evaluation, not less, such as graded quizzes and homeworks rather than just one great big exam at the end. Among other things, the deadlines and feedback helped them budget their efforts. Also, the exercise of getting something right and hitting a deadline is not an overt purpose of education, but has a certain pragmatic value.
Again, showing my age, in the pre-AI era, the technology of choice was cheating. But there were vanishingly few students who used cheating to circumvent the evaluations while actually learning anything from their courses.
If teaching and certifying could be separated, they would be. In fact, it has happened to some extent for computer programming, hence the “coding interview” and so forth. But computer programming is also an unusual occupation in that it’s easy to be self taught, and questionable whether it needs to be taught at the college level.
I don’t think there’s a way to claim remote classes are a scam without saying college as a whole is a scam with your logic. So why single out remote classes?
Seems like some kind of GI Joe fantasy that's gone on for too long.
reply