If you were a professional writer or driver, it might make sense to be able to do those things. You could still do without them, but they might make you better in your trade. For example, I sometimes drive with GPS on in areas I know very well, and the computer provided guidance is not the best.
> I can't remember the last time I write something meaningfully long with an actual pen/pencil. My handwriting is beyond horrible.
That's a skill that depends on motor functions of your hands, so it makes sense that it degrades with lack of practice.
> I can't no longer find my way driving without a GPS. Reading a map? lol
Pretty sure what that actually means in most cases is "I can go from A to B without GPS, but the route will be suboptimal, and I will have to keep more attention to street names"
If you ever had a joy of printing map quest or using a paper map, I'm sure you still these people skill can do, maybe it will take them longer. I'm good at reading mall maps tho.
Mental skills (just like motor skills) also degrade with time. I can’t remember how to do an integral by hand anymore. Although re-learning would probably be faster if I looked it up.
Please don't think of this as moving the goal post, but back to maps and GPS: you're still doing the navigation (i.e. actual change in direction), just doing it with different tools.
The last time I dealt with integrals by hand or not was before node.js was announced (just a point in time).
Sure, you can probably forget a mental skill from lack of practicing it, but in my personal experience it takes A LOT longer than for a motor skill.
Again, you're still writing code, but with a different tool.
On 2) I've combatted this since long before AI by playing a game of "get home without using GPS" whenever I drive somewhere. I've definitely maintained a very good directional sense by doing this - it forces you to think about main roads, landmarks, and cardinal directions.
I don't like having location turned on on my phone, so it's a big motivator to see if I can look at the map and determine where I need to go in relation to familiar streets and landmarks. It's definitely not "figure out a road trip with just a paper map" level wayfinding, but it helps for learning local stuff.
I couldn't imagine operating without a paper and pen. I've used just about every note taking app available, but nothing commits anything to memory like writing it down. Of course, important writings go into the note app, but I save time inputting now and searching later if I've written things down first.
> find my way driving without a GPS. Reading a map? lol
Most people would still be able to. But we fantasize about the usefulness of maps. I remember myself on the Paris circular highway (at the time 110km/h, not 50km/h like today), the map on the driving wheel, super dangerous. You say you’d miss GPS features on a paper map, but back then we had the same problems: It didn’t speak, didn’t have the blinking position, didn’t tell you which lane to take, it simplified details to the point of losing you…
You won’t become less clever with AI: You already have Youtube for that. You’ll just become augmented.
Nobody is debating the usefulness of GPS versus a paper map. Obviously the paper map was worse. The point is precisely that because GPS is so much better than maps, we delegate all direction-finding to the GPS and completely lose our ability to navigate without it.
A 1990s driver without a map is probably a lot more capable of muddling their way to the destination than a 2020s driver without their GPS.
That's the right analogy. Whether you think it matters how well people can navigate without GPS in a world of ubiquitous phones (and, to bring the analogy back, how well people will be able to program without an LLM after a generation or two of ubiquitous AI) is, of course, a judgment call.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic. I don't know about you but the best teachers I ever had were those I felt a personal human connection with. It may have been because they had shown kindness or that they were overly interested in their own subject or something else, but there was a sense of "not wanting to disappoint" the "good teachers" and thus pay more attention and try to excel.
I think we are very far from such a personal connection to an AI. If that connection isn't there, there's no real stake.
> I don't know about you but the best teachers I ever had were those I felt a personal human connection with.
Not me. Knowledge and patience do it for me. Computers do pretty well on the patience front, but are a bit more "DIY" than I'd like on the knowledge front. I'm hoping AI can fix that. But I have met humans who did well on both, and boy did I advance in skill studying under them. They are far superior to anything I think AI could ever become. But they are few and far between, at any level of education (even at uni, they're exceptional).
Most teachers I was far smarter than the teacher and they were a waste of time. Plus I've been burned extremely hard by teachers I felt a personal human connection with (and then social workers) "trying to help". Never again. Hell, I literally fought my way out that situation, physically, many individual fights with actual people getting hurt, and not by choice (did you know, for their own ease and budget savings, social workers put kids who get bullied into the same group bedroom as kids who pulled a knife at school (and don't make sure they don't have a knife). That's how much they ACTUALLY care). Never again.
I also would like to point out the priority. A patient teacher with knowledge and zero human connection: anyone who wants to learns A LOT. People who really don't want to learn, learn a little. A teacher with knowledge but no patience: everyone learns a lot, but there's a lot of shouting. It becomes painfully clear who is best. A teacher with lots of human connection without knowledge: everyone learns very little. A teacher with lots of human connection and no knowledge or patience: worst of all possible worlds. Bullies run the classroom. Nobody learns anything.
This last kind of teachers, lots of human connection (at least in their mind) and very little knowledge, rules the schools of our country.
In other words, you want to do well for students: for teachers, knowledge comes first, by 100 miles. Human connection is somewhere between nice to have and destructive. Patience: same. Makes things look nicer from the outside, but is actually kind of destructive.
> Nucleus also provides probability assessments for the embryos’ IQ, height and eye color. Sadeghi said that Nucleus informs customers of the strength of the various predictions. IQ predictions are limited in accuracy, according to the company.
Doesn't work that way. Both height and IQ have a serious dependence on nutrition of both the mother while pregnant and the offspring during adolescence as well as mental stimulation for the latter, oh and the father's nutrition and both parents' history with drugs and medication also can play part in the genetics and epigenetics of the offspring.
On top of that you have recessive genetic traits as well which means you can get stuff like skin, hair and eye color that "pause" sometimes over generations. Used to be quite a source of infidelity allegations until Mendel's inheritance research, and frankly it's still something that pops up even today.
If we take 100 embryos and we both predict their heights and IQs at 18, you with only biological sex and me additionally with the heights and IQs of the parents, I will wager a large sum that my predictions will be better than yours.
Are you interested in taking the other side of that bet for even money? I’ll even give you +110 odds to ensure you have a sportsbook-sized edge if there’s no predictive value.
Yet despite variation in what people eat and what drugs they take, high-IQ people tend to be born to high-IQ people and same for low-IQ.
Even twins raised in totally separate households will have very similar IQs later in life.
This epigenetic stuff is invariably copium from people who don’t want to admit their intellectual gifts are in fact gifts and as a corollary, all the downstream economic rewards of intelligence are also mere gifts from the lottery of being born to high-IQ parents.
It can be both genetic and epigenetic, but concur I was one of those people who believed I was smarter simply because I wanted it more and worked harder. I found out later in life that my outcomes were largely genetic and this has increased my acceptance of others as they are.
Yeah obviously epigenetics and environment matter. We should try to improve people's conditions all over, and also accept that not everyone can just work their way to "intelligent" and deserve dignity nonetheless.
Fun little quirk of IQ: Lower-IQ scored couples tend to have children with higher IQ scores, and higher-IQ scored couples tend to have children with lower IQ scores.
The explanation seems to be that whatever random genes you got to have an off-average IQ score cancel out with your partner and your offspring then regresses to the mean.
Yep! With caveat that you mean “higher than the parents,” I.e. you wouldn’t generally have a below-mean couple produce offspring that’s above the mean or vice versa.
Survive sure. But one of the people in critical condition is a small infant that got thrown out of their lap belt so they will probably have life-altering injuries from this.
Of course not. He made an illegal lottery to buy votes and got away with it. Love to see US corruption in the face of everybody so the US stop attacking other countries using allegedly corruption.
Given that this "government agency" apparently is going to "provide advice and guidance from outside of Government" it wouldn't hit that divesting rule. Only if you're on government payroll does that apply AFAIK. But IANAL.
The real question is how many other processes failed for them to get to the point that they were allowed to cast the vote. Why are those processes so weak?
Because I support the idea of a completely secret ballot. There is no transaction rollback there is no undo once it is cast. It is there and it is in an anonymized pool. This means that there must be much stronger protections to make sure that only those who are allowed to vote can cast the vote.
At least in New York City a few years ago, affidavit ballots weren’t run until the very end. So you had a pre and post-run total, and if the affidavits swung a race it was a payday for the election lawyers who would scrutinise each one.
Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, et al, are not stupid. They know full well their conversation with Trump will come out publicly, they knew that before calling him.
