Yeah, but that's the only actually creative part of writing. It's the bit that, once you reach a certain level of skill, becomes enjoyable.
I mean, I know what you've described is what everyone will do, but I feel sad for the students who'll learn like that. They won't develop as writers to the point of having style, and then - once everything written is a style-less mush of LLM-generated phrases - what's the point of reading it? We might as well feed everything back through the LLM to extract the "main ideas" for us.
I guess we're "saving labor" that way, but what an anti-human process we'll have made.
I think your experience validates the thesis. These people have expended resources on something they expect will lead inevitably to success, without much further effort required. That's, like, the very definition of "the elite". Of course, it hasn't worked - you're making more than they are, and you aren't forced to put up with (much of) their bullshit (and with palpable resentment) - because it doesn't work like that anymore. We've turned out so many graduates that a university degree doesn't mean what it used to, and they don't automatically occupy the social position to which they feel entitled. Thus, "elite over-production".
this is the problem really. not creating smarter people, because that would actually be a benefit. imagine what we could do if we had more doctors, scientists and teachers and actually funded the institutions that give them meaningful work that would benefit our society. but instead of doing that we are creating people with entitlement who think they are better than others and who then can't find work because there aren't enough jobs where their qualifications are needed.
Oh, for sure. It's another consequence of making a metric the target. At one time a university degree had more than a signaling value (granted, it still does for many), but we decided to focus on maximizing degrees held, rather than the quality of those degrees / degree holders. So here we are.
Is that an elitist position? I guess it is, in a way. On the other hand, many positions which now have a degree (or a degree from the right school) as a (hidden or overt) requirement could be just as capably done by many who don't hold those dubious qualifications. Credentialism runs hand-in-hand with elite overproduction.
Mostly the restaurant, at least in the case of these companies' "free delivery" membership deals. Restaurants pay a higher commission on those orders. (Whether that's enough to outweigh the operating deficit built into their current pricing I have no idea, but some fraction is being passed along to their merchant "partners".)
To play devil's advocate: have a look at the way plants in a forest communicate with each other - even across different species! That's a complex network, in which individual plants could be analogized to neurons.
Do I think forests are conscious in the same way that we are? No. I do think "consciousness" is not a binary, and that we have poor tools and insufficiently-developed models for understanding it.
Wireshark, plus a book about using Wireshark. I have "Wireshark Network Analysis", which looks to be shockingly expensive right now - to be fair, it's worth whatever price, but maybe not while you're speculativey getting your toes wet - and there are others out there. I am nowhere near an expert (I've only worked through about 1/3 of that book - just enough to solve the problem I had at the time!), but that's what's taught me what I know, and I know can take me further.
Many many years ago I received a phone number from a conventional carrier and then ported it into Google Voice. I wonder if there is a (legal or technical) distinction between that and "a Google Voice telephone number"?
> There's no appetite to do this kind of work. People are too comfortable.
I really hate implication of this statement. (You may not have meant exactly this, but I've heard it said with a straight face by others.)
Syllogized: People don't want to do [unpleasant or dangerous job], therefore let's make the rest of life worse so they will.
I can acknowledge the logic to that position, but there is also a logic to let's make [job] less dangerous, more bearable, and / or better compensated.
(To be clear: ensuring safety is broadly speaking the realm of government to enforce. Improving pay and working conditions is the responsibility of employers. Unions can affect both, but require the support of the state to be viable.)
I don't understand why anyone would choose the option which increases human misery. In what moral system is that the right thing to do?
> Syllogized: People don't want to do [unpleasant or dangerous job], therefore let's make the rest of life worse so they will.
It was simply an observation. I meant the first part of this, not the second part. Try not to read too much into it. No one wants a worse life, however there's also no incentive to improve those job conditions. Historically, once locals stop doing these jobs, they don't pick them back up again. The niche is filled through other means. And that's progress.
Technologists often think of robotics and automation as solutions to the dull, dirty and dangerous, and eventually we will make a field welding robot. In the interim, companies will find outside labour to do the work.
Construction in North America is some of the most mechanized in the industrial world because of this trend. Take road paving for example, extremely hazardous work that was largely manual with people shovelling and pressing tar. Now there's a specialized machine that lays down an entire lane at a time, with humans largely relegated to operation and maintenance. Isn't that what we all want? That no one has to do this dangerous work?
In fact, the transition (ie, progress) will come faster if we legislate more-stringent safety regulations, and strengthen workers' bargaining position° in regards to pay and working conditions. Corporations hate that, of course, but increasing labor cost encourages them to invest in innovation.
°I like a UBI, but there are many sensible suggestions, all of which require political will. The anti-labor position you didn't take, but others do, stifles progress.
> it seems to be easier for people to learn another language when they already know two or three.
Yes, that's empirically verified by multiple studies.
My pet theory about that is that a great deal of one's psychological sense of self is tied to one's ability to communicate with others. Learning a new language entails "letting go", to a great extent, of a linguistic sense of self. (Peter Hessler writes perceptively and humourously about this in one of his early books.) People who speak more than one language have either a) gone through this process (as adults) already, and can negotiate it more easily, or b) have (as dual-native speakers) a self-perception that is less-rigidly tied to a particular language context.
This is also why people who are highly articulate in their native tongue often progress more slowly than people who are not. I have more than once been humbled by someone who (natively) speaks what I'd (in my academic arrogance) judge to be "bad English" zooming ahead of me in foreign language acquisition. I'm concerned about being "correct", while they burble away unconcernedly and leave me far behind. Those experiences have been good for my character. :-)
reply