IMHO AI tools will (or at least should!) fundamentally change the way the education system works. AI tools are - from a certain point of view - really just a scaled version of AI now can put at our fingertips. Paradoxically, the more AI can do "grunt work" the more we need folks to be educated on the higher-level constructs on which they are operating.
Some of the bigger issues you're raising I think have less to do with technology and more to do with how our economic system is currently structured. AI will be a tremendous accelerant, but are we sure we know where we're going?
> The most depressing thing for me is the feeling that I simply cannot trust anything that has been written in the past 2 years or so and up until the day that I die.
This has nearly always been true. "Manufacturing consent" is way older than any digital technology.
For what it's worth, I have family members who are Palestinian, so I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of the innocent people dying in Gaza and the West Bank. I am not of Palestinian ethnic background myself (complex family history).
I believe the Israeli government and members of the IDF have done terrible things that they should be held accountable for. But I can't condemn the average citizen of Israel since I have no idea if they are for or against the war. I have enough Jewish friends and Israeli colleagues to know that there is a spectrum of opinion.
I also believe that organizations such as Hamas should be held accountable for the way the spend the lives of Palestinians in service of their greater cause. Some of the political leaders for the Palestinian cause use strong rhetoric while living comfortably far away from where the bombs are falling. And just like with Israelis, I have no idea what the average Palestinian believes about Israel, Hamas, or Hezbollah. I imagine there is a spectrum of opinion there as well.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it is possible for multiple truths to be operative at once.
I'm ready to believe you but the impression I have from your comment is that it would take quite a bit to convince you to take a step back from your personal beliefs and re-evaluate.
It doesn't even matter what you believe, based on what you wrote, my impression is that you are here to convince others that your viewpoint is correct, not necessarily to gain a new one.
From my understanding of the HN guidelines, a technical discussion around the technology in this story is not an issue. Where things break down is when people starting talking about Israel vs Palestine, who is at fault, who should be punished, who is the true aggressor, etc.
HN tries to really avoid this kind of discussion since it never goes anywhere productive. Folks who have really strong views on Israel/Gaza are not going to change their perspective because of a comment thread on Hacker News.
I used to think this way also but in recent times I have become less sure. Maybe the easiest way to explain my thinking is to recall that line from the movie Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it."
Obviously the truth is way more complex than that but I really do doubt the wisdom of the crowds.
A different example might the guys who wrote up the Constitution of the United States. More people were illiterate than literate back in those days. The founders were a small elite, but they created a framework that has served millions of people for a few hundred years.
In any case, yes, democracy is nuanced. It is the best system despite its flaws. And to be frank, the real issue with democracy is that it's run by people...and hardly any of us walk on water. :)
> So when we look at "the people" and say this or that is "what they want", something recoils inside me. Do we know that?
The famous (controversial) Indian teacher Osho had a saying on this: "Democracy. Government of the people, by the people, for the people...but the people are retarded."