Ed West on "nepo baby"; Mark McNeilly on how to use ChatGPT; Rob Henderson linkfest; Ethan Mollick on using ChatGPT in the classroom; Simon Cooke on government accountability
Must have mastery and control of one’s feelings at all times"
Sounds an awful lot like Joyce Benenson's Warriors and Worriers, a fairly information dense book, or perhaps it just seemed that way because lots of it is information and theory you don't encounter in most places.
I am a lot less optimistic about the value of using ChatGPT as any sort of tool. It often summarizes information incorrectly, resulting in highly unreliable results. Looking through e.g. Mark McNeilly's article, most of the uses were things that would be difficult to correct if one didn't know the answers already, or trivial to produce if one did. At best, one could use it as a generator of say an agenda if one found it quicker to check and edit ChatGPT's work than simply type out the agenda for one's self. Using ChatGPT for other fact gathering purposes is roughly equivalent to watching TV or going to the local bar and listening to the most confident sounding person on a given topic. Wikipedia is probably more accurate in most cases.
I think much of the optimism, including from Cowan, stems from a deep misunderstanding of what ChatGPT is and what it does: it is a machine that uses prediction based on its training data to predict what the next word should be, and thus generates text that is plausible sounding. It is pretty neat how it processes language, but it is not giving correct or reasoned statements, only something plausible enough that it falls under "something a person might say or believe". That is before the extra layers of hard coded rules about what it is allowed to say, and how to say it. Or considerations of what the training data is: apparently ChatGPT can be prompted to admit that it leans heavily socialist because its training material was socialist.
So, hooray, we have made the equivalent of the TV talking head who sounds believable until he delves into a subject we are knowledgeable in, and we realize he is talking through his hat. Then we have to wonder what else it is deeply wrong about, and what kind of effects that will have on those who don't notice it is full of falsehoods.
I'm concerned you are not reasonably evaluating nepotism. While the word has only negative connotations in a society that idolizes apparent meritocracy, a more rational understanding suggests that children raised in the context of a community, field, career - actually start with a ~15 year educational head start as well as a number of other significant factors (such as single minded purpose, and productive physical and social capital) that create legitimate claims of merit. An extensive head start combined with some natural aptitude is indeed merit in pure form. Perhaps on occasion, extraordinary talent can overcome it; and certainly in many cases gross negligence undermines and makes a mockery of privilege.
However, on the whole, I do not expect that a system which punishes or worse, forbids, the development of a career passed on parent to child will cause individuals, the profession, or the overall community to flourish. Local and tacit knowledge is too precious to be squandered so.
"The basic masculinity archetype (source):
Must be a fighter and a winner
Must be a provider and protector
Must have mastery and control of one’s feelings at all times"
Sounds an awful lot like Joyce Benenson's Warriors and Worriers, a fairly information dense book, or perhaps it just seemed that way because lots of it is information and theory you don't encounter in most places.
I am a lot less optimistic about the value of using ChatGPT as any sort of tool. It often summarizes information incorrectly, resulting in highly unreliable results. Looking through e.g. Mark McNeilly's article, most of the uses were things that would be difficult to correct if one didn't know the answers already, or trivial to produce if one did. At best, one could use it as a generator of say an agenda if one found it quicker to check and edit ChatGPT's work than simply type out the agenda for one's self. Using ChatGPT for other fact gathering purposes is roughly equivalent to watching TV or going to the local bar and listening to the most confident sounding person on a given topic. Wikipedia is probably more accurate in most cases.
I think much of the optimism, including from Cowan, stems from a deep misunderstanding of what ChatGPT is and what it does: it is a machine that uses prediction based on its training data to predict what the next word should be, and thus generates text that is plausible sounding. It is pretty neat how it processes language, but it is not giving correct or reasoned statements, only something plausible enough that it falls under "something a person might say or believe". That is before the extra layers of hard coded rules about what it is allowed to say, and how to say it. Or considerations of what the training data is: apparently ChatGPT can be prompted to admit that it leans heavily socialist because its training material was socialist.
So, hooray, we have made the equivalent of the TV talking head who sounds believable until he delves into a subject we are knowledgeable in, and we realize he is talking through his hat. Then we have to wonder what else it is deeply wrong about, and what kind of effects that will have on those who don't notice it is full of falsehoods.
Arnold;
I'm concerned you are not reasonably evaluating nepotism. While the word has only negative connotations in a society that idolizes apparent meritocracy, a more rational understanding suggests that children raised in the context of a community, field, career - actually start with a ~15 year educational head start as well as a number of other significant factors (such as single minded purpose, and productive physical and social capital) that create legitimate claims of merit. An extensive head start combined with some natural aptitude is indeed merit in pure form. Perhaps on occasion, extraordinary talent can overcome it; and certainly in many cases gross negligence undermines and makes a mockery of privilege.
However, on the whole, I do not expect that a system which punishes or worse, forbids, the development of a career passed on parent to child will cause individuals, the profession, or the overall community to flourish. Local and tacit knowledge is too precious to be squandered so.