No snark, but if you sincerely believe that, then there can't be a Libertarian Utopia because the libertarians are outnumbered by scoundrels 1mil to 3. Why would you take a path destined for failure?
Society's bigotry is going to flood that bad boy so quick you might as well name it Gobbels.
I love ML. I want children to be safe. This is not the place for ML or AI or Quantum or any tech.
What needs to exist is better resources for those children, that mother grading the tests, the teachers of those children, and social services that are meant to support them. If you want to make a difference about this, look there.
Don't go building a automaton King Solomon who decides why this kid should be taken from these parents because speaking Spanish was worth -0.1 on some goddamn weight trained on data generated from a racist society.
This isn't a "spooky" correlation a cool algorithm can detect, it's a serious, layered social problem.
On one hand, I agree with you. I remember having to argue whether I showed my work or not by using imaginary numbers instead of standard formulas in high school physics.
But even with these examples, the path of appeal and rectification of mistakes is much easier with all humans involved. I fear soon people will side with the machine out of ignorance or to be justified in an incorrect stance.
The idea that we could be so poorly taught by broken automated systems, that we become incapable of detecting the system is broken seems like a possibility with AI that is much less likely in pure human systems of education (though not impossible).
Things like this story, Word's auto-grader, and Grammerly's style preferences are all surreal to me. We are asking a computer to validate prose meant for human consumption.
Not a reflection of physical reality like sensor data or even accounting information, but the method of communication explicitly invented for production and consumption by humans.
Of course feedback from humans is more valuable than feedback computers, it would be irrational/miraculous if anything was better at giving feedback than a human.
It is a shame it isn't self evident to instructors how poor of a solution this is, and how much better the results are when using critique by peers and instructors -- the classic way of doing things.
I'd argue that the expectation of perpetual population growth is one of the big problems (the unsustainability of social security bottlenecking at the baby boomers being an obvious example).
There is a compelling case for immigration for that sake alone.
I'll second this downvoted opinion. The mismatch between economic good created by and economic incentive to create OSS is just tragic from a hard numbers perspective.
How do you fix it though? A large funding program? If the state or private industry were the backer, how do you prevent manipulation? The only viable models (that spring to my mind) are Spanish-Anarchist type stuff of generally funded unions of technical workers, but that doesn't feel likely.
How does the nuclear waste being dangerous for between 200 and 15.7 million years[1] factor into the ROI? Not snark, I just can't fathom how to reliably keep something sealed for 15.7 million years, much less the knowledge of what it is or how to handle it if it becomes unsealed. Otherwise, sign me up for atom smashing/fusing.
I see what you're saying about placement in time of curriculum. You're right, and I came into HTDP and SICP after knowing 3-4 programming languages well enough to release production code in them, understood the differences between programming paradigms, and was coding full-time as a job. That's very different than a freshman with little or no knowledge of programming.
I've wondered what my reaction would have been if I had started with something like SICP or HTDP, and wondered if it would've saved me some headache. It's interesting that your real world experiences reflect that it might not have been as enlightening as I wondered.