I’m not saying only teach interesting things, I’m saying teach things in an interesting and engaging way so that kids don’t feel the need to cheat their way through it to just get it done.
College is a different dynamic from a middle/high school classroom, but I don’t remember 95% of the material from my college engineering classes anyway, it’s the problem solving and information finding that I’ve retained and have helped me do the things I do. I remember the stuff from the classes that taught me the material in an engaging way though.
I always absolutely hated when a teacher did a reverse classroom and I had to “learn” at home and then practice in the classroom. I think the solution is more engaging lessons and less outside work. I know why homework exists, but homework is a chore that most people want to get done as fast as possible. If kids got to learn something interesting in school and then have their free time after school, there would be less dependence on AI. If they’re interested in the topic, they’ll put more effort into it. If not, they were never going to retain it anyway
I’ve only been doing hardware for a few years, and I’m not the best in the world at it but I still find a lot of joy in building something with my hands and seeing it work. Definitely not too late in your thirties to get into anything, even woodworking or product design or sewing or anything physical with an intellectual challenge behind it.
Work on a physical project, get into hardware design, build something physical. Even if you use AI for some of the research you’ll still be thinking a lot more than you will doing things that can entirely be validated with a chatbot
Red vs orange vs yellow is not the same as green vs cyan vs blue though. Red and orange and yellow are the same distance on the color wheel as green and blue and purple, so you could do this same thing with red/red-orange/orange or the orange to yellow spectrum exclusively.
It’s mostly just for fun, but lilypond has a bit of outdated syntax in modern programming terms. The main difference though is that lilypond compiles to music engraving, whereas capo compiles to a more universal file format that can then be used to engrave, or inserted into another file, or opened in another program.
A few months ago I outlined a spec for a new modern programming language inspired by LilyPond I call Capo. I haven’t done anything with it yet but the idea is that it compiles to MNX, which is the (still in development) successor to MusicXML, becoming a language that could be used as a scripting language in any program that supports MNX or as a standalone text-based music tool. Thought this group might find it interesting: https://github.com/Capo-Lang/capo
An open source audio interface along the lines of a Scarlett 2i2.