With the scale of how much testing is disrupting my kid's education, I'm having a hard time taking any research seriously that thinks that the key problem is that we don't test kids enough. We have all these stressors, insecurity, and funding issues and the main concern is that we're not measuring them enough? What would increased 'accountability' do if we systematically won't fund and support education, itself?

...but I'm doing my best to keep you as far away from the actual controls as possible.

"Meta Research is now recommending that meta-Zuck be given signature authority in management decisions, this following an analysis that showed, surprisingly, that meta-Zuck is not only better-regarded than his original, but is known for actually completely reading and considering the reports he's given." "Staff are now reporting that they've had zero incidents stemming from a random wild hare that Zuck was known for chasing, and that project prioritization discussions are much more consistent." "At least we're going to be able to avoid another Metaverse paradigm shift."

They're also not considering that forgetting may also be computationally beneficially for AIs.

Just because humans are capable of symbol processing doesn't mean that we are, at root, symbol processors.

Everyone's stuck between rising prices and Apple suddenly competing on entry-level options. That's going to take a bite out of everyone simply for *existing* because the "not having Apple money" is no longer an excuse. Even if it's underpowered or has other technical limitations, they're competing at a price point where those sorts of things are common and if they can execute half-decently, they're going to be viewed more favorably and get more credit for their accomplishments in the space, even if they're only moderate. High upside for Apple on this one.

I remember seeing that Moltbook's most famous posts were faked by people, anyways.

As determined by the beliefs of the person giving the order, prior to validation by a court of law, some half decade down the road. Meanwhile, contractors have no right to set terms on how their services are used or abused, essentially removing their first amendment rights. However the Pentagon can use your tool is valid and you're obligated to support it.

...and is now enthusiastic about new, innovative methods of squeezing their client base for revenue streams.

I'd think it's more Goodhart's law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) If the AI were to be able to make them more effective, that should be sufficient without measuring which tool they chose. Now they prioritize the method over the outcome.

I'm sure none of those sources needed to be consistent and complete. An AI can be handy, especially for retrieval when your parameters are a bit fuzzy for proper search, but the ability to realllllly point where you got the claim from is pretty damned important if you want to build anything reliable on it.

Also, there's no way to just jump from L2 to L4. Part of the cost and challenge for L3 involves R&D work that's critical for the success of L4. The amount of work and effort to move from L3 to L4 is potentially greater than the work to move from L2 to L3.

As his policy balloons go, this one isn't irrational, at least. Obviously, as with all such things, there's the chorus of "You can't fiat that!". Downside? Most major businesses are at least part-time banks. The airlines make more money on their credit cards than their flights. Apple had to get their card in the game. That's a pretttttty wide swathe of the economy to suddenly get a gut-punch. Not that I cry for them, by any means, but it could destabilize a lot.

It's unreasonable to weigh the value of a degree while not discussing the current down-turn in professional entry level roles, such as the historically lucrative computer science. There're plenty of people out there with marketable, useful skills who can meaningfully solve problems, but there's a broken hiring market as job allocators aren't putting them to work. I don't see a great future from the argument that we just shouldn't be training them, at all. The causal arrow's going the wrong direction. Lots of people who went into school picked up valuable, useful skillsets and are now struggling with the market reorganization currently underway. There's a great, big bet on the idea that we can replace people at such scale that the harms of doing so poorly will make up for it.

Amazon had the size. I doubt it really was 'internal business knowledge'. They have a stranglehold and are a market-maker. If you gave Amazon's knowledge to iRobot, it'd be no different. The difference is that iRobot would have simply become more leverage for Amazon's flywheel. Amazon has a competitive market chokehold advantage that can't be met, otherwise.