>> A company sets prices based on what will make it the most money.
> No company does this. Prices are set based upon demand.
I read an interview a long long time ago (with Jobs, Schiller or Cook - I don't remember) where they were saying explicitly that Apple charge the amount that get them the most money not marketshare. I remember the times when analysts where obsessed with market share and that apple had to lose because they were to expensive. I don't hear that opinion that often today.
At the time, eroding marketshare was a legitimate concern. It takes money to develop products, and without continuous development they would not remain competitive. Whether they liked it or not, marketshare is a factor in making the most money since you need to spread out the cost of development. Many companies were failing at the time, including those who made high end workstations because of that. Many years ago, I read an article about how the development of Alpha processors could not keep up simply because Intel could invest far more into R&D.
> Do you really think Las Vegas is cash strapped so that they can't afford it?
I've been to Las Vegas a handful of times, and it's really striking how much poverty exists there.
To be clear, I'm European and even Los Angeles or San Francisco are dystopian from my perspective; but Las Vegas is much better at keeping it out of tourist areas and it goes unreported because of it. I don't know a single person in Las Vegas who is living the middle-class lifestyle comparable to my friends in New Jersey, Philly, LA or Seattle.
Statistics be damned, because likely there's massive inequality that's pushing those numbers up.
"one in eight Americans thinking women are too emotional to be in politics" [1]. Well, I don't know, maybe men should not holding high political offices /s
A friend who studied political science an conflict made this observation about American politics: 30% of the voting population is insane. They will believe the most mind-bendingly illogical things, and then vote for them, so the best you can ever expect from the general population is 70% agreement on reality.
In that light, we're doing really well with only 1/8 believing such a thing.
Come on, as Beth says, those two should just fuck and get it over with.. We are all adults here. Say it with me: "Those two should just fuck and be be friends, again"
The problem starts later in life, when a person starts misjudging both time/resources needed to rush complete a task and consequences of failing it.
Failing practically anything during the study in the university is a laughing matter. Worst case you have wasted 6 years on partying and got nothing in return, maybe some debt too if it was in the USA. Failing a task later in life may lead to jail time, deportation, divorce, eviction, homelessness etc. So getting familiar with procrastination and letting it get more severe with years is recipe for disaster.
The difference is that the intake of oxygen is through diffusion (passive, along the concentration gradient) and the transport of Na+/Cl- uses ATP (active transport against the concentration gradient).
(The gills have the largest surface area to exchange ions and molecules.)
CSP once tried to develop a full generative AI, but they killed the project after a big backlash on social media (especially from Japanese on twitter).
It seems that the current line drawn by artists is: the app dev can do anything with neutral network as long as it doesn't generate a whole image.
1) Parents that walk their kids through the homework have more stress not better performing students
2) individualized learning programs exist since the 70s, they were not a substitute - you have to explain something to somebody to fully grasps something - I do not see how anybody wants to explan something to an ai
3) Nearly everybody has been to a school so everybody is an expert
The AI will generally know how to do diagnostics for any skill-level, so it should be able to identify what the child needs to work on. Diagnostic testing is not done in public schools. The teacher regurgitates a curriculum and if the kids don't get it (identified in testing), that's that. The teacher only helps students who already know how to self-diagnose (e.g, They know what they are not understanding and are willing to ask questions). Your average teacher in America has never been able to provide diagnostic testing to large classrooms. If you want to think about this differently, imagine a Doctor that can only help you if you already know what your issue is. That has been the state of the education system.
In your first comment I thought you were talking about teaching. Now It seems your main point is about diagnostics. I don’t dispute that both are intertwinned, but my reply to you was about „you can replace 90% of teachers“ with ai.
One of the strong areas of school is the in-person-interaction part of learning that can not be easily replaced by ai.
I'm not talking about the good schools in the suburbs. I'll just leave it at that. Your typical school America cannot provide the level of education an AI can, and that will be more and more true. So many kids are literally left behind, believe that.
If I understand correctly you are proposing to cut the teaching staff in the typical schools in the US to 10%, this 10% are there to place the students in front of the ai that makes the kids smarter?
I was thinking not even that. I was thinking just a dedicated staff of proctors to ensure no cheating during exams. Along with that, we can introduce psychologists for social/psychological support. But yes, the K-12 teachers as we know them need to go as they are wildly inadequate given the current state of technology.
What I find strange: my students (german school system, 11th grade) let chatGPT do the creative work (like inventing a character for a play). That was what I liked in school the most.
Creativity is not a tap that you turn on and off. Sometimes it is hard to be creative, even if you enjoy it. Even if you are good at it.
When a student feels pressure to perform, and they have an LLM to fall back on, they can poison the well of their creativity. LLMs are that tap that they can always turn on.
Then soon enough they no longer want to put in the effort. Why, when an LLM can do it perfectly right now?
> Then soon enough they no longer want to put in the effort. Why, when an LLM can do it perfectly right now?
Assuming we get to the point where the output of these models is adequate for the task, I don't think that's a problem.
Sure, we'll end up with many fewer poets, playwrights, songwriters, photographers, and the like - but those we do have will be doing it because they're passionate about it. They'll be doing it in spite of the economics, not because of them.
I'm in my 40s, and very much a software engineer at this point. I don't want to do anything else professionally if I can help it. Yet, I have a Fujifilm X-Pro3 sitting on my desk right now. I've got about $5k in lenses in my bag, and still love photography. I've done it professionally. I know with certainty that I can sustain my family on it as a career, and I know how much work that is. I'm not interested.
Instead, I'm mostly the "official photographer" for my wife's side businesses. I take on jobs here and there for friends and acquaintances when they seem fun and interesting. I do just enough to keep my name out there in the community, so I can fall back to it if my "real job" goes away unexpectedly -- which is always a possibility working for startups!
Basically, I do think creative fields will shrink significantly. I agree that we'll see AI-generated art used more and more frequently. The quality will improve - though, honestly, there is already a market of almost unlimited size that wasn't being served by humans because the expected value of those works didn't justify their creation.
In fact, that's also a good point: a rise in AI-generated art usage does not necessarily mean a fall in human-created art. I think it will mean less human art and fewer human artists in time, but that may not be the case. It very well could be the case that most brands use AI, but those that want to set themselves apart as particularly high quality or luxury will lean more heavily on human artists than ever before.
What I liked most about school was not having school. Thankfully after I left the German school system and finally was allowed to learn something in university I enjoyed that.
I don’t see why we don’t move kids more quickly to a university style education if they show that they can handle it. The 7 hour of class time per day (but don’t worry, you can do your homework in class) doesn’t seem that great anymore, it’s just a grind and sets you up for real failure when real learning begins in college (3 hours of classes a day but 9-12 hours of homework/studying).
Most people will put in the least effort they can possibly get away with. Indulging this and training this habit in a generation of students is not going to go well.
The system is already badly misaligned. Even ambitious students may consider it a better use of their time to use tools like LLMs to grind out more standardised points than use them to gain deeper understanding of a subject they may not consider important. Any STEM student targeting finance is basically uninterested in most of the subject matter, for example. This also far predates AI.
The suckers who actually want to learn will get even more badly screwed in such a system unless the assessment is balanced to favour actual knowledge. And not only at final assessment but from start to end because if you get screwed in the short term because your low marks while you get to grips with the subject gets you penalised, it takes a lot of foresight and fortitude not to buckle and just spam for points. Doing it "right" requires more teacher engagement, more parental engagement and generally more autonomy, effort and money all round. And even then you have the ever present problem of which group do you spend each marginal unit if effort on: the stronger or weaker students?
> The system is already badly misaligned. Even ambitious students may consider it a better use of their time to use tools like LLMs to grind out more standardised points than use them to gain deeper understanding of a subject they may not consider important. Any STEM student targeting finance is basically uninterested in most of the subject matter, for example. This also far predates AI.
That's not a misalignment. That's your "ambitious student" is being unwise and stupid. To this day, I have gaps in my knowledge and skills that I regret because I avoided things that I, in my childishness, did not consider "important" or "interesting." AI is going to make that far worse.
Maybe, but you can also get into some very lucrative careers by grinding points, cheating, colluding and generally gaming the system. I know of lots of people who got top-class STEM degrees and yet had barely any actual skills in the subject beyond what they needed to pass exams. They don't give a fuck they didn't really understand thermocouples or river formation or whatever. They answered the formulaic exam questions by rote and checked every marking criteria of the list for their coursework.
If AI makes their kids miscalculate and end up failing in a revamped AI-resistant educational system that actually requires learning to pass, I'll laugh.
> you can also get into some very lucrative careers by grinding points, cheating, colluding and generally gaming the system
Or, more likely, you're going to fail because you can't do the things you need to do to be successful in said careers. Or, at least, you're going to struggle because you're not very good at it.
I've met plenty of bad engineers, and let me tell you, their job seems a lot more stressful than mine. I'll pass.
Unwise and stupid people sometimes "get into some very lucrative careers?" Film at 11. "The problem currently exists in a less severe level" is not any justification for making that problem worse.
> No company does this. Prices are set based upon demand.
I read an interview a long long time ago (with Jobs, Schiller or Cook - I don't remember) where they were saying explicitly that Apple charge the amount that get them the most money not marketshare. I remember the times when analysts where obsessed with market share and that apple had to lose because they were to expensive. I don't hear that opinion that often today.