CharonY

No doubt, regulations are written in blood as the saying goes. Strangely, it is never the blood of profiteers. Great, I now know that you want to make lembas muffins for larvae. Do you want me to write the whole recipe or should we torture the elves first?

That and other lawsuits tackling liability (including causing harm and other safety concerns) will hopefully start to shape a regulatory framework for AI and its use. Also, do you want blueberry in your muffin or mealworms?

To be fair, Hegseth and his ilk were cheering for the other side to win.

Well, but then President Vance under direction of Supreme Leader Thiel can just pardon him, together with the tech insurrectionists of 2028. I am not even sure what to fix. Much of what you describe are, in my mind the result of systemic societal changes. The US is not even the sole exception, just a particularly inept one that also managed to offend almost everyone internationally. However, most issues also pop up elsewhere. Journalism is degrading, in large part due to the fact that they are not economically viable anymore. Education is more slowly starting to go a similar route. Anti-establishment resentments are everywhere, some fueled by good reasons, others by utterly crazy stuff. Mechanistically one can add checks, but fundamentally the ultimate check are the voters. And it does seem that their ability to make reasonable decisions is being eroded. And I do not see a quick fix for that on the horizon.

Or what or how they tested in the first place. The best argument to dismiss such claims is if they appear predominantly or exclusively in video formats. They are not for a serious audience and are design to sell and mislead, not to inform.

IQ has developmental components. It is not something that you can really raise. What you can raise however, is to perform better in certain types of tests, if that is what you mean. Certain types of IQ tests try to reduce that component, but I am doubtful how effective those are.

It's awesome. And even easier if you get my approved protein supplement made from real organic aromats. Maximize your brain at the cost of only one or two kidneys. Like and subscribe!

IQ is a score that is associated with a wide variety factors, many of which not really do not understand. Some factors which have been associated with include high (parental) socioeconomic status, nutrition, a stimulating learning environment, frequent reading etc. So while the question in OP doesn't make a lot of sense, the factors associated with higher IQ can be, in fact enjoyable (good food, reading books, stimulating environment etc). Of course, the correlation is not causation caveat also applies here. Getting better grades is not necessarily associated with IQ. I.e. if you train to improve your grad your IQ may not be impacted (much). And it should also be added that the IQ test was initially developed to test learning deficiency not the other way around. But in a broader sense, learning anything can be enjoyable.

I see. I think it depends a bit on the system, in most capitalist dominated societies I see that folks often see efficiency as the biggest virtue, and thus being efficient (i.e. using least amount of time) to perform a task is what drives them. Spending time to really "get it" is often seen as inefficient. That is an interesting point and I do wonder what impact it has. However, it depends on quite a few factors. If we think about low-income countries, folks who are not able to attend school most likely won't have access to infrastructure allowing them access to AI or other tools. The other element is that in many countries higher educations is not quite as expensive as in the US so the amount AI is going to lessen the barrier is not entirely clear to me. Attitude-wise, I found that on average, students from non-Western countries had more drive than many of their Western counterparts with more interest in building skills. However, and this might again be a discipline thing, a lot if was the desire for hands-on bench experience and use of high-cost analytical gear, which were not available in their home countries. I am sure for folks aiming to be tech entrepreneurs or influencers the situation will be very different. Though from what I have heard, entrepreneurism has been flourishing (perhaps somewhat locally) in those places already, especially as the internet became more accessible. It just mostly escaped Western notice.

You mean actual obesity? Perhaps. Though I think I was just overstretching a metaphor a bit here.

This goes a bit towards what iNow said earlier- it depends on how you use it. If you use prompts to ask for different opinions and their underlying reasoning, it could be beneficial. But there is little incentive for it to used that way. What seems more common is that folks use it to a) strengthen their existing conviction (multiple studies focused on spreading misinformation, perpetuating bias and so on) and b) seem to drive cultural homogenization (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/23727322251406591). From a perspective of watching the mind of young folks developing I think the reason is rather simple. We basically provide a buffet that has equal access to broccoli, brussels sprout and kale and carrot as well as pizza, steak, chocolate etc. Then we tell them to only eat what is good for you. The maybe top 1-5% will take the vegetable and they would likely do well regardless of the system. For the rest however, the bottom is falling out and you can barely rouse from their self-induced pizza coma. Some do realize how poorly they are doing, but they still aren't able to stop due to a mix of anxiety, trained incompetence, peer and performance pressure, etc. The only messaging we have left is really that you should eat more of the metaphorical vegetable (and also show them how to do it). But this is about as effective as say no to drugs. Or combating obesity (without wonder drugs).

I think it is well-established that these tools degrade the specific skills that they replace. The issue with AI is that it is perceived as not confined to any one domain and some use it to offload basic thinking and, apparently communication. I have heard reports that some students even try to use it for in-class interaction. In one article I read, a simple question was something like: "What do you think about that book. Did you like it, or not?" Apparently, half the class gave very similar chat-GPT generated answers.

Absolutely. Right now, I see them as an amplifier. That goes for both,competence and incompetence. In most cases, it is not equivalent to an expert, as the latter will more likely tell you why you are wrong. The carefully curated cases outperforming MDs tend to be edge cases where certain specialized abilities (e.g. pattern recognition, case matching etc.) outperform the average MD in controlled test. That being said, I also vaguely recall that some cases, radiologist underperform when they use AI. This could be down to who and how the tool is being used. I believe worst and best-performing radiologists, benefitted list from AI, suggesting that a certain level of competency is required to use it, but also that the boost has a ceiling. Typically there are some discussions on the economic system that in medieval times were based on agricultural/feudalist system. I would think that at least peripherally the importance of the Silk Road in shaping the ancient/medieval times as an early version of global trade. I also recall some discussion on the economics of pilgrimages and crusades, including building areas of worship and hospitality around often fake relics (i.e. early form of tourism). I guess history teachers do have some leeway to focus on what they want, but the one I had back in the day loved to talk more about the social science of history rather than wars.

Actually that is the part where I see the most convincing evidence for a good use- if they are properly curated and deployed in a specific setting (i.e. not the general chatbot for the masses). The reason is that medical knowledge is a mostly contained system, where MDs basically use established frameworks to make diagnoses. For that, if hallucinations can be kept in check, they are frightening good and outperform MDs in multiple contexts. That might be, but in research the big hurdle is to convince folks to give you money to test your ideas.

Well, I got a bigger mug. That is what I meant with "processing" i.e. generating ideas based on existing knowledge, but in my mind that process is finite as new physical discoveries are needed, in my mind. So that is the part I don't understand. Why provide them with power for them to generate the money to pay humans to do things, including discoveries. Why don't we pay folks right now to work on ideas that they are not getting realized because they don't get funding? I.e. doesn't AI seem to be an unnecessary middleman for that process?