> We can finally just take a photo of a textbook problem that has no answer reference and no discussion about it and prompt an LLM to help us understand what's missing in our understanding of the problem, if our solution is plausible and how we could verify it.
I would take that advice with caution. LLM's are not oracles of absolute truth. They often hallucinate and omit important pieces of information.
Like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous in the unskilled hands.
I have two kids in grade school and middle school and I see why we have a STEM gap. I have to constantly correct the learning at home in math. Also, I think it's fair to assume that in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China the school kids are actually put on an academic grindset unlike here where there is such little academic rigor or discipline being enforced by the school it makes sense why the k-12 education numbers are as bad as they are in the USA.
It might be worth getting up in front of the kids in middle school + and saying "Hey you're in competition at a global scale here. You're going to have to work your butts off to stay relevant."
I don't think it will boost the fertility rate in any significant way. I think the only way to really make a dent in low fertility rates is to incentivize mothers to stay at home and men to work full-time at least for the first five years of a child's life. I know people disagree with this, but it's worth considering if the declining birth rates are a major concern for the State.
A better policy would be to incentivize any parent to stay home for the first few years. Restricting it to mothers would only reduce the appeal of the policy and result in fewer takers, so why default to a more restrictive approach?
I'm curious if you have tried taking care of a young child 24/7, it is exhausting work. Some mothers are able to do it, but I find it really helps to be able to alternate between childcare and work, to give me a break.
I do think that remote work is great for mothers though, as it makes pumping/nursing more doable, whether we are working or not.
Perhaps the government can provide more subsidies for quality childcare.
Imagine blending the traditional educational structures into EdTech and using network engineering to clamp down what can be accessed in a classroom device to only the educational software modules needed. For example, you could put timers on how long each module is open. Give teachers the ability to override them and tap into each student individually if needed.
The issue is that the surrounding infrastructures would need to be much more competent than they currently are in education. I worked at an educational institution in the IT department, and the level of knowledge the IT staff had was abysmal. It was surprising that anything worked at all.
Additionally, not everything needs to be gamified. Somehow this notion that everything a child interacts with on a computer has to mimic a video game is a really narrow way of thinking. Instead, we could start with basic computer usage skills such as file management, and system configuration, and using core tools such as word processes and image manipulation software.
Instead of dumping kids into the world of Google which is a for-profit mechanism that is inherently designed to get people to click on stuff as much as possible, we actually as software developers need to re-think EdTech and have it be learning first.
yes, I see a lot of value in this approach, especially for ADHD learners (who represent about 10% of the student population). Imagine if the only thing a kid could access on their school computer was the thing they were supposed to be doing? How much would that help focus? On MacBooks, you can use https://gertrude.app/ to enforce this allow-list only approach, which has proven very beneficial for homeschool students.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I'm always trying to have fewer third-party dependencies in my codebase no matter how tiny, especially if it's solving problems that already have platform/system native solutions.
Those are my thoughts exactly. No metrics. It seems like an ad for some AI product to governments. Also, while cutting emissions is a good thing, wouldn't it be good to sell how this will make people's commutes more pleasant and generate some interest other than emissions control?
It depends on what needs to be built. If the regulators 'like' what needs to be built it'll pop up fast, look at the wind turbine expansion in Europe and parts of the USA. In terms of material input that dwarves what building one nuclear power plant or blast furnace requires.
> If the regulators 'like' what needs to be built it'll pop up fast
The most dangerous and expensive accident happening to a wind turbine is way (way!!!) less daunting and way more easy to avoid and tackle than a major nuclear accident.
> In terms of material input
Given that most material needed for renewables can be recycled, has substitutes and that there is no need for a combustible there is quite a debate there.
I would take that advice with caution. LLM's are not oracles of absolute truth. They often hallucinate and omit important pieces of information.
Like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous in the unskilled hands.
reply