Why do you think you didn't do similar when you were a student? We've seen this exact issue with other technology before: calculators for math; typewriters and then word processors for writing assignments; audio books for literacy. In those cases we've collectively realized there's a benefit in getting the manual skill and understanding how to use it before shortcutting things with the technology, even if most of the time you'll just end up using the technology. My best guess is that for most people in those classes who failed because of ai use, they don't care about the understanding (usually) required to get a good grade, they just care about the grade itself and the doors that opens for them.
It's because modern AI promises to relieve you of the tedium, leaving you to consider the important things like higher structure. It actually does deliver on this, but in contrast to older tools, it is unlimited in scope.
A calculator - let's expand this to maps, thesauruses, dictionaries, and other lookup tools - was used for a pretty narrow set of problems, and you had to transcribe the result to whatever context you needed.
An AI can be all the calculators together, and transport the output of one to the input of the next. You're meant to have the overview, but it's just so enticing to let it simply do that as well.
They mean using the AI to do the import things and the higher structure for them, not removing tedium. It's like using a calculator for math school/home-work designed to teach multiplication, which requires no transcription or putting into context. The tool isn't removing tedium. It's removing the very thing they're supposed to be learning.
And my question is, in the context of learning something, how in the world is having the AI do the thing you're supposed to be learning enticing unless you don't actually care about learning the thing
> Is that how you want to build a company or society on. Resentment?
I think this misunderstands their goals. They don't care how society/a company is built. All they care about is that they are the one building it and that they are at the top of the hierarchy.
Just like with the startups and tech companies they built, they see speed as a critical advantage so that they can be the first-mover and establish a moat. Long-term viability and health is a distant secondary or even tertiary concern. If the panopticon and some weirdly neofeudal technofacist society can be built faster than something more egalitarian, then that neofeudal technofacist society is - from their perspective - better and that is what they will bias towards and build.
God, i am so glad to see these guys succeeding. The sun may have burned out, but the sky is still bright thanks to them. May they be so successful that i can eventually buy workstation versions of their minicomputers, sort of like how they made CoaL for triton.
The thing I don't like with these kinds of articles is rather than list potential pros/cons they make a wholly one sided story everyone is supposed to agree with the whole way and say "oh wow, yeah" at the end. Reality is it breaks right at the start - you don't really know when a good time to call someone is by the sun. You know because of when they wake up, when they go to bed, what hours they work, what you're calling them about, when they like to eat meals, etc. All of that varies by many hours within a timezone based on culture or individual, so it derails that build up pitch. It's a given the author isn't particularly swayed by that, but that they don't even talk about the detail and just move on spoils the rest of the (well put together) list IMO.
One way or the other I don't think we'll make a big shift in timekeeping until/if we ever have a sizable population off Earth. Of course, that introduces its own time problems we don't have to deal with as much all being so close together :).
I don’t personally see a lot of difference in consulting a chart of “what time is it in x country” vs a chart of say “the time business starts in country x”.
They’d be the same exact list. “offset +9 hours”- the only semantic difference would be that clocks don’t change.
I should mention that I spent a little bit of time in Saudi Arabia and expecting them to be out and about at 7pm like in Western Europe and the USA is crazy, they seem to get up later and keep going until 3am. I’ve never seen rush hour at 3am until I spent time in Riyadh. It’s a false construct we’ve decided on: that everyone follows the same time pattern anyway.
Why do we believe the world needs to wake up at 7am? If nothing else its so incredibly arbitrary to begin with.
I never found those arguments for keeping time zones particularly compelling. Everyone has their own schedule, trying to standardise time to sync people up is silly, you sync by talking to them and asking them what times they are available. The number on the clock doesn’t actually matter.
But DST affects us exactly because people tried to standardise on time AND then shift that meaning twice a year. If we ditched timezones, then businesses could say ok we will work from 1700 until until 0100 or whatever, based on time relative to sunrise, it it would be consistent all year round.
The thing is, regardless of timezones, you have to ask people what times they work or are available or whatever. Also consider that timezones are arbitrary and made up anyway: china physically spans the space of 3 timezones yet the entire country uses one timezone.
reply