Links to Consider, 9/1
Ray Kurzweil on the future; Peter Gray really dislikes Common Core; Alice Evans and Oliver Kim on East Asian exceptionalism; Aaron Renn on elite university connections
By the end of this decade, AI will likely surpass humans at all cognitive tasks, igniting the scientific revolution that futurists have long imagined. Digital scientists will have perfect memory of every research paper ever published and think a million times faster than we can. Our plodding progress in fields like robotics, nanotechnology, and genomics will become a sprint. Within the lifetimes of most people alive today, society will achieve radical material abundance, and medicine will conquer aging itself. But our destiny isn’t a hollow Jetsons future of gadgetry and pampered boredom. By freeing us from the struggle to meet the most basic needs, technology will serve our deepest human aspirations to learn, create, and connect.
Yes, he is the ultimate techno-optimist. I think that the emergence of the chatbots raises his status.
With Common Core, school districts, superintendents, individual schools, principals, and teachers are judged as succeeding or failing based on tests designed to measure, in students, a very narrow range of academic achievement.
Not surprisingly, this resulted in pressures on teachers to teach to the tests and on schools to eliminate or reduce much of what used to be fun or interesting. Recesses were shortened or abolished, lunch periods were made so short that there is barely time to gobble down lunch (see here), creative assignments such as writing poems and stories were curtailed, art and music classes were shortened or eliminated. This focus on such a narrow measure of “accountability” meant that teachers in many schools lost freedom to adapt their classes to meet directly perceived student needs and interests. One result, as I noted in Letter #50, is that many of the best teachers resigned.
I think that the deterioration of public schools has many causes, and it began before Common Core. Among the causes are the better opportunities for gifted women to go into fields other than teaching, the consolidation of school districts (making them much more bureaucratic and insulated from parents), the increased power of teachers’ unions, and the Woke takeover of schools of education.
Interviewed by Alice Evans, Oliver Kim says,
The Japanese settled in large places, they took a very active role in changing the societies, and one of things they did was they invested heavily in education, built schools. I am very sympathetic to the argument that there are these longer running cultural factors.
Oliver points out that Koreans do not like to credit Japanese colonialism for their success.
The thought that occurred to me reading the transcript is that when someone emphasizes cultural support for education as an explanation for East Asian countries outperforming other Third World countries after World War II, one should wonder whether genetic factors are doing the work. It is always more polite to talk about an ethnic group’s belief in the value of education than it is to talk about average IQ. If you had seeded a country in Africa or the Middle East with a lot of schools, would you have seen the same results that you saw in South Korea?
One thing we see here is the power of relationships. Karp met Peter Thiel in law school, and was able to build and sustain that relationships for the long term. This paid dividends to say the least. It also shows the power of elite institutions. They met at Stanford Law School. Had Karp gone to the law school at State U, he would never have met Thiel.
The most important thing about elite institutions like colleges is the relationships and social milieux they grant access to. So long as that remains the case, it will be very difficult to disintermediate them or see them fall in importance.
My thought in the Network University idea is to focus heavily on connections.
substacks referenced above:
@
@
@
Kurzweil wrote: "By freeing us from the struggle to meet the most basic needs, technology will serve our deepest human aspirations to learn, create, and connect." How many have those aspirations? For many, that freedom would be a disaster. Indeed, we may already be seeing the effects of a widespread ability to get by without the struggle to meet basic needs.
What's bothers me with public school/teacher's union apologists like Grey is that they seem to take as an examined assumption that things like Common Core are ADDING requirements to teaching that were not there before, and so to meet these new requirements other things we like have to be cut back. It seems to me that Common Core is really just a subset of what was done previously anyway in addition to the things we like. The issue is that schools were not even doing the smaller range of things they were supposed to do, and so once they had requirements they cut out all the extra things to attempt to do what they were supposed to be doing in the first place.
In other words, inefficient and incompetent people doing an unexamined job are going to look like they are doing all sorts of stuff. If you then start looking at one portion of what they were supposed to be doing anyway, and they stop doing all the other stuff, that doesn't mean you screwed up by measuring things, it means you screwed up by letting them work without supervision because they were not doing what you believed they were doing.