There are a lot of things in the article that I find a bit wishy-washy.
> It’s a signpost for a broader trend—one that treats friction as failure, learning as delivery, and formation as a plug-in.
I think building something provides a lot more friction (and learning opportunities) than reading books. We had computer classes for at least 7 years in school and beyond some loops and recursion, I didn't really think I understood computers. One month of trying to build an app and that worked. Similarly, hundreds of hours of YC (and other) video content paled in comparison to trying to salvage a startup that was going bankrupt.
> And what’s the real tragedy of this model? It’s not that it fails—it’s that it succeeds. Brilliantly. But at the wrong task: a perfect system solving for performance, not presence.
I don't know why this line feels like it's written by ChatGPT. Maybe because it has that tone of trying to say something deep in a verbatim manner that is the signature style of ChatGPT.
> Training children to outperform machines may win the game, but it misses the point:
Machines don’t need meaning. We do.
And I haven't found more aimless people than those coming out of current highschools. They then go to the universities their peers go to, get the job their peers do and try to fill their weekends with entertainment. No judgement, but I don't think AI will reduce any of that.
> It’s a signpost for a broader trend—one that treats friction as failure, learning as delivery, and formation as a plug-in.
I think building something provides a lot more friction (and learning opportunities) than reading books. We had computer classes for at least 7 years in school and beyond some loops and recursion, I didn't really think I understood computers. One month of trying to build an app and that worked. Similarly, hundreds of hours of YC (and other) video content paled in comparison to trying to salvage a startup that was going bankrupt.
> And what’s the real tragedy of this model? It’s not that it fails—it’s that it succeeds. Brilliantly. But at the wrong task: a perfect system solving for performance, not presence.
I don't know why this line feels like it's written by ChatGPT. Maybe because it has that tone of trying to say something deep in a verbatim manner that is the signature style of ChatGPT.
> Training children to outperform machines may win the game, but it misses the point: Machines don’t need meaning. We do.
And I haven't found more aimless people than those coming out of current highschools. They then go to the universities their peers go to, get the job their peers do and try to fill their weekends with entertainment. No judgement, but I don't think AI will reduce any of that.