Because that's the received wisdom: if you don't like a decision, the best way to get it reversed is to yell about how it's going to lead to utter disaster and it MUST be changed at all costs.

>Or gets rewritten in an LLM?

It'll get rewritten in rust by an LLM. Then no one will be able to understand the code.

Absolutely. It was collected in The Cyberiad. I'll go to the trouble of looking it up.

Here we are: "The First Sally, or, the Trap of Gargantius."

Reminds me of a Stanislaw Lem story in which two competing countries perfect a method of having their robotic armies connect up into supergenius networks, growing smarter as they grew bigger. Until the final day, when they were ready for all-out battle, and each had their army connect up into one big ultimate network before the two met...at which point both armies realized how stupid the whole war was, and simply didn't fight.

They were thinking, "We need people on PCs that are tied to the Google ecosystem."

The problem is that we have Lord Snapcase instead of Lord Vetinari.

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

NSA has a better ring to it than A.I. Force.

Being in a psychiatric hospital for an indeterminate period, sitting in a wheelchair wondering when Nurse Ratchet is going to get around to changing your diaper isn't exactly "Getting Off", just saying.

Selling it isn't weird if it makes money...which it does, hand over fist.

*Buying* it is totally bizarre to me, but I can't deny people do.

Fruit flies like a BFG.

No. The Department of the Army didn 't "replace" the Department of War,, it *was* the Deparrtment of War. Same secretary (Kenneth Royale), same personnel, same everything. Only the name changed. It can trace its unbroken existence back to its founding in 1794 to the present day. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, got the Secretary of the *Navy* (James Forrestal) as its secretary, all new personnel, and was a totally new organization (with John Sullivan as Forrestal's replacement at Navy).

No, the Department of the Army still exists. It was removed from the Cabinet in 1949 but it didn't go anywhere. There was a recent kerfuffle about the Secretary of the Army leaving his position. You may have seen it in the news. The simple fact is that the Department of Defense was an all-new creation and not a renaming of anything.

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.