That's funny that I just had that idea around the same time that you must have been typing your answer. (See my adjacent answer). Actually thought it was probably a crazy idea and would get quickly downvoted. Quite surprised that there's already a Wikipedia article about it. Cool.
What about this idea: flip the script. Students must learn the subject OUTside of class: teacher provides video lectures for those that want to use them, but any source is open game -- YouTube, AI, you name it.
Then class time is reserved exclusively for doing the assignments. No phones or computers allowed.
So teachers are...proctors? No reason to have every teacher recording their own lectures. One teacher per grade per district? Per state? Outsourced to the lowest bidder who generates it with AI?
There is far more value in skilled individual attention at the doing exercises stage - helping where people are stuck, figuring out which parts need revision - than at the lecture stage. Think about how college seminars work - you do the reading on your own, the learning happens when you're digging into it in a group setting.
College seminars are taken by people who want to be there.
If we're talking about K-12 education, that is for everyone and it's in society's interest that the most people learn the fundamental knowledge that we are trying to teach them.
I'm certainly open to the idea that our current approach is not optimal but I'd need to see evidence that a seminar-style approach would work in that setting. Maybe for some high school subjects. In fact some English classes were that way. We'd get a reading assignment, and then discuss in class, and then typically also have to write something about it on our own.
But math, sciences, and English topics such as grammar were all taught by lecture and example and I'm not sure the seminar approach would work as well there.
But seriously, teaching in public schools these days relies so much on technology, youtube, that it makes no sense to have teacher’s as paid professionals, just get subscriptions to technology services for the kids and teach them how to work them. I think we still need places to socialize kids, but that’s a different job. Anyway, yes, too many teachers are simply there to enforce unnecessary social hierarchies and rigid modes of thinking, there is no need for most of them.
Did your kids spend a year doing virtual classes? Our district here did a pretty good job compared to most, but for many kids it was basically a lost year.
Guessing number one was easy. Number four was no surprise. But I'm still working on some of the others in the top 5.
(NOTE: The ranking system differs fairly significantly from Wikipedia's "Most Visited Websites", but there appears to be some well-vetted research behind it.)
> What happens when we outsource boring but important work to AI? Research shows we forget how to do it ourselves
Cue some sanguine response about how the problem is not actually a problem and something about buggy whips.
I think the article raises an important point, but is otherwise not great. It suggests continuing to relying on automation but "paying attention" while you use it. I think that's a pretty bad, suggestion actually.
I think the key to keeping ones skills up is to consciously reject automation, some significant fraction of the time. E.g. choose yourself to do 5% of your "fixed-asset accounting reports" manually, or force your subordinates to do so. Drive with the GPS off half the time.
I agree that the article's suggestions are inadequate, but I think the concern that was raised is significant and real. One of the reasons I posted it here is because I'd love to gather more suggestions from this community about how to address this danger. Just being aware of it is a start, but your suggestion of periodic automation-fasts is a good one too.
I borrowed a car recently that didn't have the automated security features that I am accustomed to (blind-spot monitor, etc), and it was a great reminder to refresh my skills.
Summary: Researchers in a new study tasked an AI-powered tech company (nicknamed "ChatDev") with developing 70 different programs. They found AI could develop software in under seven minutes for less than $1 in costs, on average. AI bots were assigned roles and were able to talk, make logical decisions, and troubleshoot bugs.
The colors may have been there in the raw image, but it's clear to anyone who has experience in photography and photo editing that these images were at the very least, enhanced to bring out those colors. The simplest version of doing this is turning the saturation knob way up - but professionals typically use much more nuanced tools than that.
Especially in the ground pictures, a lot of work was done on the global/local contrast to achieve detail across the brightness range. In addition, manually brightening and darkening some of the areas to guide the eye. These are things photographers have always done since the early days of photography - however with modern tools, it's easier to achieve a look that goes too far, and starts coming off as "synthetic" or "video-gamey".
I also think they just did a swap of the sky in some of the dramatic cloudy shots.
"Joshua Avatar 2.0. Both of these video clips were 100% AI-generated, featuring my own avatar and voice clone. We've made massive enhancements to our life-style avatar's video quality and fine-tuned our voice technology to mimic my unique accent and speech patterns perfectly. This will be soon deployed to production and everyone can try it out! If you're interested in early access, join the waitlist" - Joshua Xu
This is a 20 year old study based on 30-70 year old data. Has a Hanford employee myself, I can certify that safety standards at the Hanford site are orders of magnitude higher now than they were in the early days.
Doesn't Hanford still have some leaking holding tanks on site? There was supposed to be concern about the waste making it into the water table or Columbia IIRC.
Reminds me of Cyc.[1][2]
[1] www.cyc.com [2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cyc