These COT outputs are the same sort of illusion as the general output. Someone is feeding them scripts of what it looks like to solve problems, so they generate outputs that look like problem solving.

I can't remember if I mentioned it previously on here, but an llm seems to be an extremely powerful synthesis machine. If you give it all of the individual components to solve a complex problem that humans might find intractable due to scope or bias, it may be able to crack the problem.

The difference with what I'm suggesting is that they won't be forced to learn about 7 or 8 different things they don't care about at the same time.

The allocation of teachers' time will be better with a more constrained curriculum, and the classes where students choose to learn about a subject will be a more engaged.

Framing learning things you're uninterested in as "learning to get over yourself" is odd. This isn't an ego problem, and dictating personality traits to such an extent is a questionable goal.

Everything else should be about exposure. So children are lectured on science, history, or whatever other subject; but they don't actually need a grade in these subjects during elementary school. This would reduce the work burden on students and teachers. The only purpose is to light a spark in those with true curiosity.

In high school, students should be able to choose topics of interest that they learned about in elementary school to do more intentional learning with tests and grades. Everyone else continues on a general path with the core subjects being tested and non-core subjects simply being lectured.

In college, those who chose a specific focus in highschool accelerated their learning for that subject. For others, if they didn't find anything interesting, they can go into a trade or whatever else they choose. If they are late bloomers, they go to college and cultivate their newly found interests with a larger back log of pre-reqs.

There's no point in "teaching" children things that they immediately forget only for them to go on to become a generic office worker or retail employee. We should cultivate those with the desire to be cultivated, and stop pretending that it's actually feasible to have an entire society of "intellectuals." There is a place in the world for those who don't care about learning, but there is little sense in throwing significant education resources at them.

Consider this. You can take anyone from any group in your nation, place them in a different nation, with a different culture, and they will adopt the mannerisms and accents of that culture.

We focus on race constantly, but it's clear that culture drives the norms that we see in any group. And culture may be persistent (especially now with technology allowing every culture to potentially spread everywhere), but it's not intrinsic.

With this framing, I interpreted Idiocracy's intro as being about a culture of intelligence or learning being harder to maintain in a modern world, than a culture of apathy or fun.

It felt way too close to home.

> At the end of the day, this is a cultural issue, not a medical one, and needs to be solved via cultural norms, not via political intervention based on contrived pretenses

It is possible to consider people's subjective experiences in tandem with the consequences of those experiences and make an empirical judgement. The consequences can be quantified, even though the subjective experience itself can't.

If we found that people began committing suicide after using social media, would you suggest this can't be studied, and that a government wouldn't have good reason to want to legislate against social media in these circumstances?

This is really all I'm trying to get at. Replace suicide with depression, reduced quality of life, addiction. Whatever you like. If it holds in the suicide case, it holds in all of them.

"establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior."

And other sources have something similar. I'm interpreting your comment as saying "(psychological) harm is subjective, and because it can not be measured empirically, it's not possible to have expertise on this topic."

Fortunately, there are real world consequences that can be measured. If I take an action that makes many people say "ow!" and we acknowledge that expression as an indicator of pain, even though I can't measure the exact level of pain each person is experiencing, I can measure how many people are saying "ow!" I can measure the relationship between the intensity of my action, and the number of people that respond negatively. There's plenty of room for empiricism here, and a whole field of mathematics (statistics) that supports handling "normative" experiences. They even have a distribution for it!

The foundation of law is not scientific exactness or scientific empiricism. It is the mechanism by which a state establishes norms. A law against murder does not stop murder, but it does tell you that society does not appreciate it.

Humans have a great capacity for problem solving and creativity which, at its heights, completely dwarfs other creatures on this planet. What else would we reference for general intelligence if not ourselves?

My skepticism towards AGI is primarily supported by my interactions with current systems that are contenders for having this property.

Here's a recent conversation with chatgpt.

https://chatgpt.com/share/69930acc-3680-8008-a6f3-ba36624cb2...

This system doesn't seem general to me it seems like a specialized tool that has really good logic mimicry abilities. I asked it if the silence response was hard coded, it said no then went on to explain how the silence was hard coded via a separate layer from the LLM portion which would just respond indefinitely.

It's output is extremely impressive, but general intelligence it is not.

On your final point about functional replacement not requiring biological mimicry. We don't know whether biological mimicry is required or not. We can only test things until we find out or gain some greater understanding of reality that allows us to prove how intelligence emerges.

Usually there was a cadence to things that allowed for a decent amount of downtime while the machine was running, but I once got to a job where the machine milled the parts so quickly, that I spent more time loading and unloading parts than anything else. Once I started the first part, I didn't actually rest until all of them were done. I ended up straining my back from the repetitive motion. I was shocked because I was in good shape and I wasn't really moving a significant amount.

If I talk about excessive concern for productivity (or profit) being a problem, certain people will roll their eyes. It's hard to separate a message from the various agendas we perceive around us. Regardless of personal feelings, there will always be a negative fallout for people when there's a sudden inversion in workflow like the one described in this article or the one I experienced during my internship.

I'm admittedly in no position to argue deeply about biology, or even physics for that matter, because I studied mechanical engineering. I dealt with physics in an applied manner.

With that said, this story comes to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri

It seems to disagree with your idea that fat is not fuel. And the first law of Thermo seemed to be applying to this man. He had little to no energy input (via food) and a baseline energy expenditure from just existing, so his system burned stored energy via body fat.

So while the legislation, and implementation can be deemed problematic, the political desire to prevent counterfeit is not actually unreasonable.

Having particular objects be banned that aren't under the exclusive control of a government actually creates new precedent. Regardless of the technical feasibility that you keep bringing up, this legislation is undesirable because of what could come after.

If prices increase and wages don't keep up with them, an increasing number of people become squeezed by their environment. This is a slow event, sure, but enough drops can fill a bucket. The fallout from this pressure on the general populace will be the failure that you're saying can't happen. This seems inevitable without an intervening event to reset things.

With that said, I don't think your concerns are unreasonable, and I'm not sure UBI by itself could solve anything. At a minimum price controls or government administering of food and housing would be necessary to keep prices from rising in response to the influx of cash everyone would receive, but the problem of people not working does seem like a big potential issue.

I believe there have been studies to the contrary, but those studies necessarily miss the universal part of ubi, so they don't have the negative feedback loops that could spring up in a real implementation.

I haven't used agents much for coding, but I noticed that when I do have something created with the slightest complexity, it's never perfect and I have to go back and change it. This is mostly fine, but when large chunks of code are created, I don't have much context for editing things manually.

It's like waking up in a new house that you've never seen before. Sure I recognize the type of rooms, the furniture, the outlets, appliances, plumbing, and so on when I see them; but my sense of orientation is strained.

This is my main issue at the moment.

None of the things you listed are signs of merit, they are signs of pedigree. If people recommended them here, they did so in error.

There's certainly a difference between universities, but the most important differentiators are connections (has she exhausted these) and prestige. If those aren't working for her, the only thing left is personal projects. That is the true indicator of merit in the software space.

As for specific advice, your daughter is in a similar situation to me. I graduated thinking I had did all of the right things, and that my degree (mechanical engineering) was some sort of magic ticket. I was unemployed and then underemployed for a year or two. I eventually went to a job fair and got a job as a data analyst then, finally, moved into data engineering.

Reality has shown her that there isn't always a direct path to a goal. Are there other skills she has that she could use to get meaningful or interesting work?

Tell her to explore alternate jobs outside of her field or preferred industry, build up a portfolio of projects on the side to keep her skills sharp, and keep applying to her preferred role, but now at a much slower and deliberate pace.

Those of you who would ask someone for financial information after they say this, would you also say "it's hot out side" if they described something as cool during the summer?

Ultimately, given the complexity of security, expecting there to be some cultural shift on privacy is silly unless it's made trivially easy. We can't get people to eat right, exercise, or control their screen time and social media use and all of those have more immediate and tangible consequences.

I appreciate the message, but I don't think the call to action is practical.