I didn't scour the text but one thing I didn't see as an explanatory consideration in the paper is that the larger companies they talk about having larger adoption are also much more likely to have reasonably robust controls (and consequences) that prevent mixing personal/corporate use of AI tooling. That's my world.
On the other hand my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement. She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data against her lesson plans and state standards to find places to shore things up as the year progresses. She runs the english language learning department in her school and also uses it to help ensure that there is representation in her materials for the huge mix of cultural backgrounds of her students.
It's truly helped her immensely and it's all been on her personal account. The district has no program or budget to guide or support teachers and admin on using these tools in education.
Schools for the poorer segments of society keep adding more and more technology, eroding the analytical skills of their students and staff. But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child. This keeps the administrators happy.
Meanwhile ultra-expensive elite private schools for the children of the Zuckerbergs, Al Sauds, Al Nahyans, where the teachers are Ivy and Oxbridge graduates emphasise tradition, classical studies and analytical skills while relegating technology to a minor role
As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
This was more than a decade ago when we were looking into emersion schools for our daughter. We went to several private schools first and all three were emphasizing ipads as their primary tool for teaching language. The public school our daughter was set to attend had an open house promoting its long running emersion programs.
Wow. Our public school had native speakers and no ipads. There was a major focus on true emersion. From minute one, they were spoken to in the native language. The teachers were incredible. In the first six months, my daughter was speaking in full sentences and her teachers were praising her pronunciation of certain words.
The real eye opener came at a local park. My daughter was playing with a boy, speaking to him and his mother. I came over to join the fun and the mother started speaking to me in Spanish. I was like, "Uh, I don't speak Spanish." She looked at me confused and said, "Your daughter, she was speaking fluently to both myself and my son in Spanish."
It was a pretty jaw dropping moment. One, to think we were blessed to have such a great emersion program at our public school and secondly to see my daughter pick up a language so effortlessly. It really reinforced my idea that its all about the quality of education, not necessarily how much you're paying for it.
This is incredible to hear! My gf has had similar stories about kids coming into her program with zero English, often with parents that have little to no English, and within a short amount of time becoming conversationally fluent and translating for their mom and dad.
> But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child.
Baltimore spends more per student than Switzerland.
> As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc.
> Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student.
A lot of this is accounting.
You don't need to buy chromebooks for pupils when they already bring their own tablets/laptops. It's not unheard that if there is some initiative requiring equipment (music, sports, smartboards) parents fund that initiative outside tuition costs.
Private schools tend to be controlled-admission and controlled-admission schools can have much narrower variance in skill level. The "dumb" kids do not swallow attention of the teacher and the "super-smart" kids do not get neglected. Richer parents can afford private tutors, closing the gap even further. On top of that, they tend to afford more time to coach their children in the right direction.
All of that costs a small fortune, but is not visible if you compare total state funding of public schools versus admission / tuition costs.
The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimore public school would not become Rotschilds and Rockefellers and Zuckerbergs had they gone to Pillips Exeter.
In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
The public schools in at least my corner of Switzerland are better than the private schools, including Le Rosey. This seems to be the opinion of nearly everyone I have met.
Prior to her current role my gf spent about a decade as the head of a very elite private elementary school (she's been in education for 35 years now). Certainly ten figure families represented in the student body with names you would recognize as such. The school had access to all of the resources they could ask for and they did very well on paper. However, the attitude of the students was qualitatively different (and in my gf's opinion much worse) than those of her current students.
It's fun to imagine a collection of rock star educators huddled around every child just constantly feeding their intellectual curiosity, but the reality is most of those kids just aren't hungry. They live lives of comfortable inconsequentiality which, on average, seems to rob something from human curiosity and drive.
I have some cousins (on the wealthier branch of the family) who were the "middle class" students at a school like that. Their dad was a specialist doctor who made a fair amount of money as an expert witness in trials. They came out of it extremely hungry to reach the socioeconomic class of their peers. One is an orthopedic surgeon who did her fellowship in snow sports injuries in Vail, and one is starting his Wharton MBA in the fall.
Meanwhile other relatives who went to good public schools came out of it with a thirst for knowledge and have had eclectic careers with degrees earned out of personal interest, and are happily living middle class lives in midsize cities.
I suspect one of the big advantages that money brings to the kids of the rich is to have not only one-on-one education, but also the best-of-the-best in each subject.
That said:
> classical studies
While this may be the "cornerstone of an elite higher education" as Wikipedia calls it, IMO (like studying Shakespeare[0]) I'm not convinced it is a productive use of time.
Don't get me wrong, nerd out about anything you like, but a lot of the world shifted since then. The overlap between what you learn from studying people who thought the sun was a chariot drawn over the sky by magic horses and that the Sahara was caused by some idiot driving them wrong, and what you need to know to deal with a highly connected globally integrated supply chain, is not exactly zero; but childhood is limited and you are likely better off focusing on what's actually in the modern world.
That said, of the few ways it is still useful is likely as shibboleth for the powerful to know one another.
[0] Shakespeare's closer to us than the ancient Greeks and Romans, of course, but still a very different world, the plot of e.g. Merchant of Venice just can't happen today. Plus he was seen as merely "good" rather than "the best"[1] within his own life, was clearly reworking other older tales for his audience[2], his plays were his era's version of somewhere between MCU, a soap opera, and stand up: the goal was bums on seats not high art, it was watched by a broad audience including normal people not just the era's version of evening-wear, crowd participation was a thing, actors would need to be reminded their lines in the middle, etc.
If you want to effectively acquire a broad understanding of the human condition as it has been understood throughout history, the great books of the classical tradition (including, yes, myths and fables that talk about e.g. the sun being driven across the sky by magic horses!) will do a far better job of that than just about anything that was written in the 20th or 21st centuries. Young kids have the kind of cognitive development that's required to make good progress on that, while they would be very limited wrt. understanding anything other than the very basics of math and science.
> The overlap between what you learn from studying people who thought the sun was a chariot drawn over the sky by magic horses and that the Sahara was caused by some idiot driving them wrong, and what you need to know to deal with a highly connected globally integrated supply chain, is not exactly zero.
The classical epics speak of heroism and virtue. Understanding certain human morality which is timeless is very useful.
It's not like education in practical domains like CS or supply chain are highly efficient either. Something which forms your outlook is important. While most of the modern literature is not that influential, kids should read the Iliad, Odyssey and Havamal.
Value in knowing that virtue ethics is a thing, yes, but also value in knowing how it compares with consequentialism and deontology.
Classical heroes are not generally good people in the modern sense; they are powerful people. Think The Boys and Watchmen rather than by Marvel and DC. Even supposedly anti-hero modern characters like The Punisher and Deadpool are closer to/less far from the modern understanding of heroism than the ancient heroes are. Though I guess James Bond would be about right, he's a lot more like the classical heroes in that he's generally misogynistic and his violence is directed at The Other, with Q serving in the role of Hermes giving Perseus winged sandals, a sword, and a cap of invisibility.
(Was I taught this in school? No. Did I have the kind of mother who kept some runic divination books around even though I was theoretically being raised Catholic and going to church in part because the best local school was a Catholic school, and thereby teach myself to read the inscription around the outside of the dustcover of the first edition of The Hobbit? Yes).
> Classical heroes are not generally good people in the modern sense; they are powerful people.
I think it's more apt to say that classical heroes were envisioned as 'real' people. While I think almost all people are inherently moral, nobody is "good" in the way that we often like to portray - it's a facade. That facade did not exist in the past, and I think it makes the works consequently much more human in nature.
IMO study whatever you like, no? For me being deeply immersed in a topic that doesn't 1:1 translate to an improvement on the CV is its own pleasure. This way I get to read (complex stuff) for pleasure because it isn't connected to the career hamster-wheel. There is no pressure, while at the same time directly improving my foundation - whether that is Philosophy, pure Math or niche-History does it matter?
> better off focusing on what's actually in the modern world.
I give the elevator pitch version, people respond as if I've not given it any thought at all, so I might as well add a few more words in the first version so I don't have to reply with a metaphorical eye-roll.
> this might change your mind: https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/andreas-reckwitz-loss-fr... (If you only want to study what's actually happening in the modern world, this is the one that explains the loss from Modernity through a sociological lense)
Thanks for the link, but I already have quite a lot on my to-read list.
> I recall N.N. Taleb also making some good points about why to read books that have stood the test of time rather than a best-seller.
> As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
The rich and powerful pay "fuck you" money for their kids to get the best pre-college educations possible. It takes an incredible amount of willpower for a world-class teacher to say no to that type of money over even high-paying private schools.
Keeping down cost per child? What are you talking about? The cost per child has skyrocketed in the US over last 20 years, particularly among the worst-performing schools. Baltimore spends more per child than Mountain View. NYC spends more per child than Palo Alto.
There is a certain view, popular among many people, that poor performing schools perform badly because they are underfunded. It has been vigorously spread by politicians, teachers, and activists. Well, we ran the experiment. With enormous federal and state spending, we managed to mostly equalize the spending, and, in many cases, fund the badly performing schools more than the good ones. The results of the experiment are very clear: additional funding, by and large, does not *cause* significantly improved educational outcomes. Any observed correlation between school funding and outcomes is a result of who lives in the area, and who attends the school. The casual arrow does not go from funding to outcomes, but from the school population to both funding, and, in parallel, to outcomes.
Increased funding did improve educational outcomes. It just didn't improve it enough to be considered worthwhile.
The fact is that educational outcomes are caused by a large number of variables. Areas with (historically) poorer schools have less competent (or more corrupt) administrations so money doesn't go as far. Even with good leadership at the top (superintendent or public school committee), if the source of that money is not something you can rely on consistently enough to pay salaries with then you are not going to see significant changes.
Pre-K education is also critical to determining later school performance, as knowing the alphabet and numbers are practically assumed by kindergarten curriculums as they are covered far too far to be more than a review. But we have not tried that yet, so we'll see if that pans out...
> my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement.
My wife, who is also a teacher, does the same thing. I think this is an underrated use of AI right now. There's also been a new wave of edtech companies focusing on AI as the teacher, which I'm skeptical will reach product market fit. I think AI as the teacher assistant could be interesting though.
IMO, in everything, there will be a small cohort of incredibly motivated and dedicated to always giving their all for their job, which is also their passion in life. Then there are the people who at one point had that passion^, and are now doing the work to cash in a paycheck, and will take shortcuts where possible to replace the effort they would be putting in.
^ not that this is always something to blame people for. A passion to do something you love doesn't typically translate into doing it so that you enable your employer to profit.
I think a majority of my friends are teachers and this could not be further opposite their sentiments. They feel strongly that it’s dishonest, nearly akin to plagiarism to use AI output in lesson plans. They don’t use it for grading or data analysis b/c of privacy concerns. They mostly complain that the kids are using it for homework, which makes it hard to grade both because it’s too uniform and because there’s no good faith effort going into the work which makes reading it unrewarding. And the consensus is that test scores are down b/c they’re offloading normal course work to AI. It’s basically the bane of their existence.
The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.
Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.
Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?
When I say “how” I mean like how u/glouwbug mentioned: Formatting. But more so Structure.
When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.
Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.
I feel like this is a common format for social sciences or economics papers, e.g. most of the papers I've seen on ssrn.com have a similar structure.
To be sure, I always did find those a bit hard to read (they seem to never have evolved past the stage where papers were read on, y'know, paper instead of screens) but I think this paper is simply keeping with the conventions for studies on this subject matter.
The figures down 80 scrolls towards the bottom is what bothered me also.
Most of the time with studies, the figures are where you should go first. It's not uncommon to find cases where the text makes claims that the numbers don't support. It also, pre AI era, took at least some extra effort to make data visualizations, so the authors would focus on visualizing the most useful/impactful/interesting data sets.
It did make me ask why I wanted to see them while reading, and if there was any value in just reading the text without the images filling in the blanks (and possibly biasing what I was focusing on).
Concluded that I still want to see the images right around the time the are referenced.
Purely anecdotally, over the last few weeks I've noticed a significant uptick in articles trying to convince me how awesome AI is doing. And that's from a pretty high baseline of articles that were already telling me how I should really appreciate how awesome AI is.
It's almost as though there's some worry that the wheels are going to come off before the right people are able to cash out.
isnt it how marketing is done these days? people/companies buy views, clicks, articles, posts on social media saying how great something/someone is or how its changed their life etc etc.
it really becomes hard to separate the wheat/chaff for alot of these things...
They draw a random sample of matched adopters but use the full Compustat population of US companies as non-adopters and don't disclose the sampling rate, which is statistically risky.
Also doesn't account for pilots. If a Enterprise customer has 10 licenses for a pilot, they could be in there.
This reads like some crypto or NFT commodity white paper, i.e. like an ad that says you need to use this now, and more, so that you'll figure out what it's good for.
A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".
Conclusion: no measureable ROI. In fact, the enterprises have no idea where or how to begin measuring (we don't either tbh). We are still early. Keep buying our product, so we can find out, together.
I didn't scour the text but one thing I didn't see as an explanatory consideration in the paper is that the larger companies they talk about having larger adoption are also much more likely to have reasonably robust controls (and consequences) that prevent mixing personal/corporate use of AI tooling. That's my world.
On the other hand my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement. She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data against her lesson plans and state standards to find places to shore things up as the year progresses. She runs the english language learning department in her school and also uses it to help ensure that there is representation in her materials for the huge mix of cultural backgrounds of her students.
It's truly helped her immensely and it's all been on her personal account. The district has no program or budget to guide or support teachers and admin on using these tools in education.
Such a shame.
Schools for the poorer segments of society keep adding more and more technology, eroding the analytical skills of their students and staff. But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child. This keeps the administrators happy.
Meanwhile ultra-expensive elite private schools for the children of the Zuckerbergs, Al Sauds, Al Nahyans, where the teachers are Ivy and Oxbridge graduates emphasise tradition, classical studies and analytical skills while relegating technology to a minor role
As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
This was more than a decade ago when we were looking into emersion schools for our daughter. We went to several private schools first and all three were emphasizing ipads as their primary tool for teaching language. The public school our daughter was set to attend had an open house promoting its long running emersion programs.
Wow. Our public school had native speakers and no ipads. There was a major focus on true emersion. From minute one, they were spoken to in the native language. The teachers were incredible. In the first six months, my daughter was speaking in full sentences and her teachers were praising her pronunciation of certain words.
The real eye opener came at a local park. My daughter was playing with a boy, speaking to him and his mother. I came over to join the fun and the mother started speaking to me in Spanish. I was like, "Uh, I don't speak Spanish." She looked at me confused and said, "Your daughter, she was speaking fluently to both myself and my son in Spanish."
It was a pretty jaw dropping moment. One, to think we were blessed to have such a great emersion program at our public school and secondly to see my daughter pick up a language so effortlessly. It really reinforced my idea that its all about the quality of education, not necessarily how much you're paying for it.
I wonder if the word you’re looking for is “immersion” — to be immersed in something — rather than emerging from .. knowledgelessness?
This is incredible to hear! My gf has had similar stories about kids coming into her program with zero English, often with parents that have little to no English, and within a short amount of time becoming conversationally fluent and translating for their mom and dad.
It's pretty amazing.
> But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child.
Baltimore spends more per student than Switzerland.
> As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc.
> Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student.
A lot of this is accounting.
You don't need to buy chromebooks for pupils when they already bring their own tablets/laptops. It's not unheard that if there is some initiative requiring equipment (music, sports, smartboards) parents fund that initiative outside tuition costs.
Private schools tend to be controlled-admission and controlled-admission schools can have much narrower variance in skill level. The "dumb" kids do not swallow attention of the teacher and the "super-smart" kids do not get neglected. Richer parents can afford private tutors, closing the gap even further. On top of that, they tend to afford more time to coach their children in the right direction.
All of that costs a small fortune, but is not visible if you compare total state funding of public schools versus admission / tuition costs.
> The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc.
Yup. In general the benefit of schools in richer areas is better parents, rather than better schooling itself.
Depressing, but true.
Baltimore does not spend more per student than Institut Le Rosey, the school of kings... (alumni include the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the du Ponts)
The fees are well over USD $150,000 a year.
Philips Exeter (Zuckerberg's school ) is a bargain by comparison at $80,000 s year .
These schools emphasis clear and analytical thinking and traditional education.
In contrast the unfortunate children of the poor are subjected to everyone technology and education trend of the moment...
Education in public schools has turned into AI slop being generated by poorly educated teachers.
The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimore public school would not become Rotschilds and Rockefellers and Zuckerbergs had they gone to Pillips Exeter.
That doesn’t mean their schools aren’t better. Money isn’t the only reason having a thoughtful, rigorous and well-constructed education is important.
In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
Ah, cause they inherited a ton of cash ya?
Are you defining "poor" to mean everyone who doesn't send their kids to Philips Exeter?
The public schools in at least my corner of Switzerland are better than the private schools, including Le Rosey. This seems to be the opinion of nearly everyone I have met.
You only attend Le Rosey for the network.
Eh.
Prior to her current role my gf spent about a decade as the head of a very elite private elementary school (she's been in education for 35 years now). Certainly ten figure families represented in the student body with names you would recognize as such. The school had access to all of the resources they could ask for and they did very well on paper. However, the attitude of the students was qualitatively different (and in my gf's opinion much worse) than those of her current students.
It's fun to imagine a collection of rock star educators huddled around every child just constantly feeding their intellectual curiosity, but the reality is most of those kids just aren't hungry. They live lives of comfortable inconsequentiality which, on average, seems to rob something from human curiosity and drive.
I have some cousins (on the wealthier branch of the family) who were the "middle class" students at a school like that. Their dad was a specialist doctor who made a fair amount of money as an expert witness in trials. They came out of it extremely hungry to reach the socioeconomic class of their peers. One is an orthopedic surgeon who did her fellowship in snow sports injuries in Vail, and one is starting his Wharton MBA in the fall.
Meanwhile other relatives who went to good public schools came out of it with a thirst for knowledge and have had eclectic careers with degrees earned out of personal interest, and are happily living middle class lives in midsize cities.
I suspect one of the big advantages that money brings to the kids of the rich is to have not only one-on-one education, but also the best-of-the-best in each subject.
That said:
> classical studies
While this may be the "cornerstone of an elite higher education" as Wikipedia calls it, IMO (like studying Shakespeare[0]) I'm not convinced it is a productive use of time.
Don't get me wrong, nerd out about anything you like, but a lot of the world shifted since then. The overlap between what you learn from studying people who thought the sun was a chariot drawn over the sky by magic horses and that the Sahara was caused by some idiot driving them wrong, and what you need to know to deal with a highly connected globally integrated supply chain, is not exactly zero; but childhood is limited and you are likely better off focusing on what's actually in the modern world.
That said, of the few ways it is still useful is likely as shibboleth for the powerful to know one another.
[0] Shakespeare's closer to us than the ancient Greeks and Romans, of course, but still a very different world, the plot of e.g. Merchant of Venice just can't happen today. Plus he was seen as merely "good" rather than "the best"[1] within his own life, was clearly reworking other older tales for his audience[2], his plays were his era's version of somewhere between MCU, a soap opera, and stand up: the goal was bums on seats not high art, it was watched by a broad audience including normal people not just the era's version of evening-wear, crowd participation was a thing, actors would need to be reminded their lines in the middle, etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_of_William_Shakespe...
[2] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth, why yes I do only know about Amleth from SMBC
If you want to effectively acquire a broad understanding of the human condition as it has been understood throughout history, the great books of the classical tradition (including, yes, myths and fables that talk about e.g. the sun being driven across the sky by magic horses!) will do a far better job of that than just about anything that was written in the 20th or 21st centuries. Young kids have the kind of cognitive development that's required to make good progress on that, while they would be very limited wrt. understanding anything other than the very basics of math and science.
αἴκα.
Less laconically, point is "as it has been understood throughout history" << "as is today".
You want to understand today? That means following this, both at a surface and meta level: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sHBb4cMUsTs
This is so endearing and so rad at the same time :)
AND totally on point.-
> The overlap between what you learn from studying people who thought the sun was a chariot drawn over the sky by magic horses and that the Sahara was caused by some idiot driving them wrong, and what you need to know to deal with a highly connected globally integrated supply chain, is not exactly zero.
The classical epics speak of heroism and virtue. Understanding certain human morality which is timeless is very useful.
It's not like education in practical domains like CS or supply chain are highly efficient either. Something which forms your outlook is important. While most of the modern literature is not that influential, kids should read the Iliad, Odyssey and Havamal.
Value in knowing that virtue ethics is a thing, yes, but also value in knowing how it compares with consequentialism and deontology.
Classical heroes are not generally good people in the modern sense; they are powerful people. Think The Boys and Watchmen rather than by Marvel and DC. Even supposedly anti-hero modern characters like The Punisher and Deadpool are closer to/less far from the modern understanding of heroism than the ancient heroes are. Though I guess James Bond would be about right, he's a lot more like the classical heroes in that he's generally misogynistic and his violence is directed at The Other, with Q serving in the role of Hermes giving Perseus winged sandals, a sword, and a cap of invisibility.
> Havamal
ᚦᛖᚹᛁ᛫ᚲᚨᚾ᛫ᛞᛟ᛫ᚦᚨᛏ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚠᚢᚾ
ᛁ᛫ᚨᛗ᛫ᚾᛟᛏ᛫ᚲᛟᚾᚹᛁᚾᚲᛖᛞ᛫ᛁᛏ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᛗᛟᚱᛖ᛫ᚹᚨᛚᚢᚨᛒᛚᛖ᛫ᚦᚨᚾ᛫ᚹᚨᛏᚲᚺᛁᛜ᛫ᚲᚨᛈᛏᚨᛁᚾ᛫ᛈᛚᚨᚾᛖᛏ᛫ᛟᚱ᛫ᛈᛚᚨᚹᛁᛁᛜ᛫ᛞᚢᚾᚷᛖᛟᚾᛊ᛫ᚨᚾᛞ᛫ᛞᚱᚨᚷᛟᚾᛊ
(Was I taught this in school? No. Did I have the kind of mother who kept some runic divination books around even though I was theoretically being raised Catholic and going to church in part because the best local school was a Catholic school, and thereby teach myself to read the inscription around the outside of the dustcover of the first edition of The Hobbit? Yes).
> Classical heroes are not generally good people in the modern sense; they are powerful people.
I think it's more apt to say that classical heroes were envisioned as 'real' people. While I think almost all people are inherently moral, nobody is "good" in the way that we often like to portray - it's a facade. That facade did not exist in the past, and I think it makes the works consequently much more human in nature.
Shakespeare really hurt you didn't he :D
IMO study whatever you like, no? For me being deeply immersed in a topic that doesn't 1:1 translate to an improvement on the CV is its own pleasure. This way I get to read (complex stuff) for pleasure because it isn't connected to the career hamster-wheel. There is no pressure, while at the same time directly improving my foundation - whether that is Philosophy, pure Math or niche-History does it matter?
> better off focusing on what's actually in the modern world.
this might change your mind: https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/andreas-reckwitz-loss-fr... (If you only want to study what's actually happening in the modern world, this is the one that explains the loss from Modernity through a sociological lense)
I recall N.N. Taleb also making some good points about why to read books that have stood the test of time rather than a best-seller.
> Shakespeare really hurt you didn't he :D
Nah, just find him overrated.
I give the elevator pitch version, people respond as if I've not given it any thought at all, so I might as well add a few more words in the first version so I don't have to reply with a metaphorical eye-roll.
> this might change your mind: https://www.suhrkamp.de/rights/book/andreas-reckwitz-loss-fr... (If you only want to study what's actually happening in the modern world, this is the one that explains the loss from Modernity through a sociological lense)
Thanks for the link, but I already have quite a lot on my to-read list.
> I recall N.N. Taleb also making some good points about why to read books that have stood the test of time rather than a best-seller.
Thinking of other authors I find overrated… :P
> As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age...
The rich and powerful pay "fuck you" money for their kids to get the best pre-college educations possible. It takes an incredible amount of willpower for a world-class teacher to say no to that type of money over even high-paying private schools.
Keeping down cost per child? What are you talking about? The cost per child has skyrocketed in the US over last 20 years, particularly among the worst-performing schools. Baltimore spends more per child than Mountain View. NYC spends more per child than Palo Alto.
There is a certain view, popular among many people, that poor performing schools perform badly because they are underfunded. It has been vigorously spread by politicians, teachers, and activists. Well, we ran the experiment. With enormous federal and state spending, we managed to mostly equalize the spending, and, in many cases, fund the badly performing schools more than the good ones. The results of the experiment are very clear: additional funding, by and large, does not *cause* significantly improved educational outcomes. Any observed correlation between school funding and outcomes is a result of who lives in the area, and who attends the school. The casual arrow does not go from funding to outcomes, but from the school population to both funding, and, in parallel, to outcomes.
Increased funding did improve educational outcomes. It just didn't improve it enough to be considered worthwhile.
The fact is that educational outcomes are caused by a large number of variables. Areas with (historically) poorer schools have less competent (or more corrupt) administrations so money doesn't go as far. Even with good leadership at the top (superintendent or public school committee), if the source of that money is not something you can rely on consistently enough to pay salaries with then you are not going to see significant changes.
Pre-K education is also critical to determining later school performance, as knowing the alphabet and numbers are practically assumed by kindergarten curriculums as they are covered far too far to be more than a review. But we have not tried that yet, so we'll see if that pans out...
> my girlfriend is a teacher and for the past year ChatGPT has allowed her to augment her lesson plans with slides/games/etc that have had a very positive effect on student engagement.
My wife, who is also a teacher, does the same thing. I think this is an underrated use of AI right now. There's also been a new wave of edtech companies focusing on AI as the teacher, which I'm skeptical will reach product market fit. I think AI as the teacher assistant could be interesting though.
IMO, in everything, there will be a small cohort of incredibly motivated and dedicated to always giving their all for their job, which is also their passion in life. Then there are the people who at one point had that passion^, and are now doing the work to cash in a paycheck, and will take shortcuts where possible to replace the effort they would be putting in.
^ not that this is always something to blame people for. A passion to do something you love doesn't typically translate into doing it so that you enable your employer to profit.
I think a majority of my friends are teachers and this could not be further opposite their sentiments. They feel strongly that it’s dishonest, nearly akin to plagiarism to use AI output in lesson plans. They don’t use it for grading or data analysis b/c of privacy concerns. They mostly complain that the kids are using it for homework, which makes it hard to grade both because it’s too uniform and because there’s no good faith effort going into the work which makes reading it unrewarding. And the consensus is that test scores are down b/c they’re offloading normal course work to AI. It’s basically the bane of their existence.
The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.
Lol ok tons of teachers use LLMs to make material. The plural of anecdote is not data, but in this case it's close.
> tons of teachers use LLMs to make material
How do you say this with such confidence and then, in the very next sentence, admit that all you have is anecdata which you don't even bother to cite?
>She also uses it to help with analysis of testing data
>on her personal account
With all the PII stripped, I hope?
OpenAI is PII compliant so it's ok
I really hope you are joking
Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.
Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?
you are complaining about a problem with this paper without explaining what it is.
When I say “how” I mean like how u/glouwbug mentioned: Formatting. But more so Structure.
When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.
Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.
I feel like this is a common format for social sciences or economics papers, e.g. most of the papers I've seen on ssrn.com have a similar structure.
To be sure, I always did find those a bit hard to read (they seem to never have evolved past the stage where papers were read on, y'know, paper instead of screens) but I think this paper is simply keeping with the conventions for studies on this subject matter.
Single column PDF. This is the frontier.
I find single column much easier to read than dual. Though the line spacing is too much in this concrete example.
It’s an econ paper. What do you want? A page of Claude slop with the small caps subtitles?
Yes with an extra helping of emdashes!
Granted I didn't comb over it but to me the big issue was that it was just a big data dump without any material attempt at meaningful analysis.
That and all the figures were at the bottom which was kind of annoying.
The figures down 80 scrolls towards the bottom is what bothered me also.
Most of the time with studies, the figures are where you should go first. It's not uncommon to find cases where the text makes claims that the numbers don't support. It also, pre AI era, took at least some extra effort to make data visualizations, so the authors would focus on visualizing the most useful/impactful/interesting data sets.
It did make me ask why I wanted to see them while reading, and if there was any value in just reading the text without the images filling in the blanks (and possibly biasing what I was focusing on).
Concluded that I still want to see the images right around the time the are referenced.
Likely just formatting
this paper sucks. It was written by capital E Economists and has some very bad figures that are all hidden at the bottom.
Making valid complaints would require actually reading it.
This is a typical working paper (preprint) not white paper, for its field. You can wait for the journal publication.
"badly". There, fixed it for you.
Seriously, the best blog post on this subject has to be Ludicity: https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-glo...
Purely anecdotally, over the last few weeks I've noticed a significant uptick in articles trying to convince me how awesome AI is doing. And that's from a pretty high baseline of articles that were already telling me how I should really appreciate how awesome AI is.
It's almost as though there's some worry that the wheels are going to come off before the right people are able to cash out.
isnt it how marketing is done these days? people/companies buy views, clicks, articles, posts on social media saying how great something/someone is or how its changed their life etc etc.
it really becomes hard to separate the wheat/chaff for alot of these things...
They draw a random sample of matched adopters but use the full Compustat population of US companies as non-adopters and don't disclose the sampling rate, which is statistically risky.
Also doesn't account for pilots. If a Enterprise customer has 10 licenses for a pilot, they could be in there.
This reads like some crypto or NFT commodity white paper, i.e. like an ad that says you need to use this now, and more, so that you'll figure out what it's good for.
A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".
Question: "How"
Answer: Yes.
Conclusion: no measureable ROI. In fact, the enterprises have no idea where or how to begin measuring (we don't either tbh). We are still early. Keep buying our product, so we can find out, together.
69 pages long.
The main text is only 23 pages double-spaced. The remaining manuscript comprises images, tables, and references. It's not that long really.
the rest of the 'supporting' material adds little.
Blog post: https://openai.com/index/how-enterprises-put-ai-to-work/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49281467)