gamerDude

I would say that schools survive because there purpose is none of those lofty ideals that we hope they are. But instead they solve for daycare and they've got the benefits of progressing towards some idea of your child being independent and hopefully successful.

The costs will need to go way way down either through chips (but then less updating) or something else. $2 to put away a block is very expensive labor.

Or everyone will find AI development incredible boring over time because everything already exists and is easy to make and will turn to going deep into their own hobby because of it.

I don't think we really know the second and third order effects here.

Rereading, I can appreciate the active verb you want me to use, but I like "in consideration".

I am in a period of consideration, it's more passive which accurately captures the reality.

In my startup, I am currently in consideration for doing this exact thing. The interesting part is it's not really the AI that's causing the issue. It's the ease of my developer to make a mess, either with messy code or feature bloat.

After figuring out the exact product we need with some very quick development cycles with AI, we now have some problems that I can't keep under control because of AI. So, currently under consideration to rewrite the core functionality without AI so we can keep it simple, understandable and slower to change.

The interesting part is that AI could do this, but managing developers with AI has become very difficult to get them to slow down and build stable simple things.

EDIT: I found it interesting how negative the comments were and I thought it would be easier to add context to the root.

My developers wanted to use AI. I was a skeptic for several reasons. But I agreed that it was worth committing to and seeing what came of it. And all in all, the rapid prototyping is excellent.

However, as parts of the software are past the point of rapid prototyping, I talked with my team and everyone agreed that the core piece deserved a re-factor/re-write because of the mess it was. Classic tech debt of deprecated code hanging around and prototype features with patchwork additions that now are a poor way of executing the intended function.

So, we agreed to do a significant re-factor and did. However, quickly it got incredibly messy again. Partially due to AI using git to look at prior commits and add things back.

And so, it was essentially an unsuccessful refactor and we find ourselves with the same issue. They also agree that using AI is the problem here because it's very easy to get new things. And the temptation to solve a problem quickly is high (I am stressing the opposite, to go slow), but it can be hard to say no to a co-worker who isn't dealing with the technical issues.

So, both myself and my developers agree that AI is the issue in creating a messy that has resulted in unstable code. The reason I say that I am considering this choice is because while they acknowledge the issues it's causing, they aren't excited about returning to coding without them. Which is also why I'm considering the right move here, since the goal is both a happy team and well functioning software.

This is some work that I want to see in education. How do you validate if something is true or not.

A lot of times that will take physical tests. Or in the case of math/logic, tests to validate each line or validated sources of previously proved theorems

I feel like this is a cultural symptom and something many people are hoping to solve in healthcare. Basically we treat solving problems as amazing rather than preventing problems. You get rewarded if you treat a sickness instead of keeping a healthy person healthy.

This is the same thing. We need to reward things never going wrong as a society since this is pervasive.

I agree, but I think this is a skill in all parts of life. Some design has always been add, add, add. The skill to remove and simplify has always been valuable, but few do it.

In weight loss, many people take the approach of add and it doesn't work. Do what you are doing now and take this pill or run further or do more. But mostly the secret is eat less.

In design and engineering, it's often removing things instead of overcomplicating them.

In communication, it's often, remove lots of your side points and just focus on your core argument.

We may have removed a constraint that allows people to do more, but the skill has always been to choose, prioritize and remove the things that are making it worse

In a way, I think coercion is a requirement to be ethical. Ethics is determined based on what current society believes to be the right thing to do. We see that there are a variety of different cultures and ethics around the world, which would indicate that humans wouldn't just automatically follow a universal set of rules.

Thus to be ethical in your society, usually means you must follow the rules determined by a collective group of your nations ancestors or you will be shunned/jailed/harmed/etc. Which is essentially coercion. "Act this way or be punished."

To me, the opportunity may be in reading for entertainment. Maybe to expand on a side story or flesh out part of a world I want to read about.

For opinion pieces, I'd rather the human work through an opinion and read about that personal journey!

Well, they had the data around if the answer would be harmful to the students learning. AI was scored at 3.5% harmful answers and 12% of law professor answers were considered harmful.

"so... Catnip in tacos?" Excellent, but I got an error when I tried to give it 5 stars.

Seems like a business opportunity. Face to face authentication in every major city that can authenticate people when needed.

I worked for a couple of years in education and I think this sentiment is so harmful:

> It's also difficult to experiment or strike out on your own as an educator when the future of the students in front of you could be negatively impacted by any mistakes made (not to mention job/test scores/etc) so most just ride the rail all the way down.

It's pervasive and makes things move so slowly. The biggest issue I have with it is that the system is so protective of doing no harm, but doing no harm to a system that is failing students is a poor decision imo. We should be more experimental if things are generally bad. Be protective of the mechanisms when we have good results, not when we have bad ones.

You need to be one side of the marketplace first. Uber started by the founders being the drivers.

That means either being the traveler and carrying things for others. Or be the demand and start shipping things this way and get some other people to carry packages for you.