If AIs become smart enough to outperform a critical mass of humans across the board, that's the singularity and whilst the economic model says all humans out of jobs means no consumers, the model isn't really valid anymore because the underlying assumptions are just broken too, so you can't take the model too seriously. Obviously it would be very disruptive but the demand destruction economic model just isn't making useful predictions anymore.
Yes, it is much easier to train someone to use AI than to train them to have sufficiently baked-in math and language skills to be able to leverage the AI.
Integration of the air cooling and water heating. For example, I have a air conditioner pumping heat out of my house right next to a box that's putting heat into the water coming into my house.
The way you learn is totally different from the way a novice learns; they don't have a vast memorised store of knowledge, let alone the connected structure over that memorised knowledge. When you learn something, it gets incoporated thanks to these foundations.
Projects are less efficient for learning foundational skills. They have their place, but with infinite funds I would still give my children an education with a bedrock of boring drill and testing and memorisation.
I just went and had a flutter at being a high school math teacher. I went in saying 'I never used math to create until my honours year, I want different for my students'.
I soon changed my mind; I think those of us who become expert have often have really rich memories of a project where we learnt so much, but we just don't remember episodically all the accumulated learning that happened in boring classrooms to enable the project-induced higher order synthesis.
> Okay, but you can do the same in dynamically typed Python
But the rust code is still safer, e.g. you haven't checked for an `AttributeError` in case `req.cookies`, the point is Rust protects you from this rabbit-hole, if you're prepared to pay the price of wrestling the compiler.