As someone whose preferences fall very much on the maths-and-science side of the spectrum, I do think we need to produce more and better skilled mathematicians and scientists. But for the majority, competent maths GCSE standard will be as numerate as they ever need to be. This is a typical government tack of 'this approach isn't working - we need to do more of it'.
It strikes me that there are two problems: - Too many not getting to the standard we would want at GCSE - to which the solution, I would have thought would be 'better' (I don't know how!) teaching to GCSE, rather than taking everyone beyond GCSE. - Not getting enough highly skilled mathematicians - to which the solution might be encouraging those with the skills to do so to develop their maths skills deeper and earlier (a further maths GCSE?), and/or better motivation to take maths further (more bursaries to pay tuition fees for those doing maths at university?)
Now I have put no more than five minutes thought into the above, so if it can be easily picked apart I'm not surprised. But my point is that getting everyone to do maths beyond GCSE does not appear to be solving the problems with learning maths that we have.
It is basically Rishi saying he wishes everyone was a bit more like him, as then we could all be super rich and stop moaning. He does not commit to doing anything, funding anything, its just his personal wishlist not a policy.
When school leaving ages were set at 16 and then 18, similar arguments were made.
The Head Count would be better off starting down’t pit at 14 etc.
One of my best mates is a maths teacher. She's incredibly smart (based on her ability at picking up boardgame rules and then winning), and would waltz into the analytical/stats part of my job.
The difference is that she loves teaching kids from tough backgrounds, particularly refugees with limited English who tend to better in maths than other subjects. I don't think there will ever be enough maths grads with that kind of personality to make the policy work.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
This is a recipe for the death of civilisation and the end of humanity. Apart from anything else, we need to be educated so that we are in a position to overthrow our robot overlords.
95% of the maths I was taught I never used after school, the other 20% I could do on a calculator.
So you can't add up?
You’re off on a tangent, a bad sine.
That's cos I only did maths to 16.
Very sensible. Here's one of our absent friends, quoting Isaac Asimov to make a wise point I had forgotten about. Everyone who studies maths has a point where it goes from pleasantly easy to impossibly hard. Once you cross that threshold, it doesn't really matter how much effort you put in, or how well you are taught. Maths suddenly just gets too difficult and too abstract.
95% of the maths I was taught I never used after school, the other 20% I could do on a calculator.
So you can't add up?
You’re off on a tangent, a bad sine.
That's cos I only did maths to 16.
Very sensible. Here's one of our absent friends, quoting Isaac Asimov to make a wise point I had forgotten about. Everyone who studies maths has a point where it goes from pleasantly easy to impossibly hard. Once you cross that threshold, it doesn't really matter how much effort you put in, or how well you are taught. Maths suddenly just gets too difficult and too abstract.
I was the only boy at my grammar school who chose the Arts side for A level but also did Maths(with Statistics). I was able to go on with my History and Geography S levels (remember them?) but Maths S level was beyond me. Nevertheless I was able to teach Statistics for Social Research at University.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
One of my best mates is a maths teacher. She's incredibly smart (based on her ability at picking up boardgame rules and then winning), and would waltz into the analytical/stats part of my job.
The difference is that she loves teaching kids from tough backgrounds, particularly refugees with limited English who tend to better in maths than other subjects. I don't think there will ever be enough maths grads with that kind of personality to make the policy work.
Yes, the primary job of a teacher is to motivate the kids to learn, and to do that they have to be passionate about teaching. That's just one reason why AIs will never be teachers.
As someone whose preferences fall very much on the maths-and-science side of the spectrum, I do think we need to produce more and better skilled mathematicians and scientists. But for the majority, competent maths GCSE standard will be as numerate as they ever need to be. This is a typical government tack of 'this approach isn't working - we need to do more of it'.
It strikes me that there are two problems: - Too many not getting to the standard we would want at GCSE - to which the solution, I would have thought would be 'better' (I don't know how!) teaching to GCSE, rather than taking everyone beyond GCSE. - Not getting enough highly skilled mathematicians - to which the solution might be encouraging those with the skills to do so to develop their maths skills deeper and earlier (a further maths GCSE?), and/or better motivation to take maths further (more bursaries to pay tuition fees for those doing maths at university?)
Now I have put no more than five minutes thought into the above, so if it can be easily picked apart I'm not surprised. But my point is that getting everyone to do maths beyond GCSE does not appear to be solving the problems with learning maths that we have.
The crazy thing is that Rishi's plan seems to solve neither of those problems, instead concentrating on the broad middle of students who have decent civilian standard GCSE maths but don't continue to A Level because they would rather do something else.
If this is what Team Rishi has chosen as the exciting teaser for Rishi's Big Vision, the cupboard really must be bare.
Casino is having a crack at being a political Cnut.
Hope that's not a typo.
😀 Alas no. Be careful old chap. A positive attitude is one thing, sticking yourself on the front line advocating for this government is quite another. You do not control what they do and should not be the butt of the anger they thoroughly deserve. It’s a toxic recipe for your mental health.
Believe you me, I'm not an uncritical advocate for this government! I was extremely critical of Truss and I posted how venal and self-serving they were on Christmas Eve on here.
However, I do like Sunak personally and it's no secret that my principles and values are conservative so there will be times when I do agree with what they're doing.
I remember how you were virtually the only regular Labour poster other than Nick Palmer publicly defending Gordon Brown on here come 2010!
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Chatbots are quite inept at messing things up and absolutely even with access to calculators, doing mental arithmetic and being decent at it is very useful.
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
Again: how are we going to persuade our kids to learn *anything* when they will quite rightly say: “I will never need this, and never use it, and it will never make me any money in any job, and anyway I have a small machine in my pocket which can do all of these things, instantly, for free, and 100 times better than me. Or you, Sir”
That’s quite hard to answer. “Because it’s good for you in some vague way I can’t define, Jennings” isn’t going to cut it
Some philosophies of education would say that you shouldn't persuade your kids to learn. You should instead leave them be and wait for their natural curiosity to spark an interest in learning when they are ready for it.
And so then people will want to learn Maths because they are fascinated by it, or because they need it to pursue their interest in treehouse construction, etc.
Regarding MS vs other software suites, I grew to absolutely despise Microsoft. And having set out as a consultant in 2020 managed to eradicate MS completely.
But after several years and using multiple clients' systems and processes I am in the process of migrating everything from Google Workspace to Microsoft 365. Windows 11 and the latest versions are usable enough to not be a pain in the arse, and its easier to just accept that and crawl back to Redmond.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
As someone whose preferences fall very much on the maths-and-science side of the spectrum, I do think we need to produce more and better skilled mathematicians and scientists. But for the majority, competent maths GCSE standard will be as numerate as they ever need to be. This is a typical government tack of 'this approach isn't working - we need to do more of it'.
It strikes me that there are two problems: - Too many not getting to the standard we would want at GCSE - to which the solution, I would have thought would be 'better' (I don't know how!) teaching to GCSE, rather than taking everyone beyond GCSE. - Not getting enough highly skilled mathematicians - to which the solution might be encouraging those with the skills to do so to develop their maths skills deeper and earlier (a further maths GCSE?), and/or better motivation to take maths further (more bursaries to pay tuition fees for those doing maths at university?)
Now I have put no more than five minutes thought into the above, so if it can be easily picked apart I'm not surprised. But my point is that getting everyone to do maths beyond GCSE does not appear to be solving the problems with learning maths that we have.
There is already a Further Maths Level 2 (GCSE EQuivalent) qualification, popular in private schools for developing students for A-level maths because of its higher algebra content.
I think you've misread my comment. I do have a Starling account, which I got specifically because it has zero fees abroad. So does Monzo although I believe that has some limits on cash withdrawals both in the UK and abroad.
A gap in the market (I think) is low or zero transaction fees on INcoming money. Starling etc. won't charge you to send money to someone, but I believe they do charge if someone abroad sends you money. Trranslation agencies send me monthly payments in Euro, and First Direct cackles evilly and deducts a slice every time. If anyone knows a solution to this, I'll buy them a drink...
They put a load of soldiers in a large building marked on every map. They put a load of ammunition next to them. They move them about in broad daylight.
And whose fault is it when the Ukrainians blow them up?
Although I suppose the story may have the positive side effect (from the Putinista point of view) of making soldiers nervous about using mobile phones to tell people just how big a disaster Putin's penile compensation scheme is.
And, of course, it may have some truth in it, improbable though this would be for a Russian press release.
Mobiks get their phones confiscated and the Russian government makes MegaFon, MTS, etc. cancel the contracts. Because they are as thick as fuck and usually the product of fetal alcohol syndrome they go out and buy/steal new phones all the time. The Ukrainians probably have an operation to sell cheap Chinaphones with compromised baseband processors going in Donbas.
It almost certainly doesn't require any of that. In all likelihood the mobile networks are backdoored or hacked and Ukraine, or an ally, can hoover up all the signalling data in occupied Ukraine. So they know where all phones are, and even switching them off will merely give a bloody big clue that something important is nearby. Cyberwar is yet another area where Russia appears to be failing and on the back foot.
The ability of humans to acquire mobiles in the most challenging environment is extraordinary. Access to social media is seen by a number as being a basic right.
Add in the fact that there are commercial satellites right now capable of connecting to phones (in a limited manner). Yes, signals intelligence has just gone commercial.
Guess whose giant LEO network is in a deal to sell this as a service? The phone connection stuff, not sig int. Though they have also just launched a military offering - which might well include sig int…..
As someone whose preferences fall very much on the maths-and-science side of the spectrum, I do think we need to produce more and better skilled mathematicians and scientists. But for the majority, competent maths GCSE standard will be as numerate as they ever need to be. This is a typical government tack of 'this approach isn't working - we need to do more of it'.
It strikes me that there are two problems: - Too many not getting to the standard we would want at GCSE - to which the solution, I would have thought would be 'better' (I don't know how!) teaching to GCSE, rather than taking everyone beyond GCSE. - Not getting enough highly skilled mathematicians - to which the solution might be encouraging those with the skills to do so to develop their maths skills deeper and earlier (a further maths GCSE?), and/or better motivation to take maths further (more bursaries to pay tuition fees for those doing maths at university?)
Now I have put no more than five minutes thought into the above, so if it can be easily picked apart I'm not surprised. But my point is that getting everyone to do maths beyond GCSE does not appear to be solving the problems with learning maths that we have.
It is basically Rishi saying he wishes everyone was a bit more like him, as then we could all be super rich and stop moaning. He does not commit to doing anything, funding anything, its just his personal wishlist not a policy.
And I don't think there are quite enough daughters of billionaire software entrepreneurs out there for all of us.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
Most people aren’t clever enough to learn maths, usefully, beyond the age of about 14. Most people have an IQ between 85-115
From having gone to both private and state schools, and sending my children to both private and state schools -
Private education - in a large chunk of the sector - consists of optimising the amount of educational difference imparted. At least as measured by exams. That is - the pupils are not especially different from the achieving* state pupils - but the money is used to try and get the most into pupils heads.
The difference centres on self motivation, I think. There are those who, if parked in a library with the text books at 11, would teach themselves. I was one (nearly) of these. For such people, the actual school has a smaller input.
Nearly everyone isn’t like that. State schools, because of their lower resources, find it hard to help all the children all of the time.
This leads, inescapably, to the fact that the state system fails huge numbers of bright children.
I personally think that this gap may be bigger for the “bright but non genius, motivated but need quite a bit of teaching help” group.
*parents interested in education, books in the home etc
I found your comment quite incoherent and a touch confusing
So I asked ChatGPT to shorten it and clarify it. Herewith:
“Private schools are known for imparting a higher quality of education, as measured by exams. However, this may not be due to the students being inherently different from those in state schools, but rather due to the fact that private schools often have more resources and can therefore provide more individualized instruction.
“Some students may be self-motivated and able to teach themselves, but the majority of students benefit from more direct teaching and support. The state school system may struggle to provide this level of support due to limited resources, leading to a gap in achievement between private and state schools, particularly for bright but not necessarily genius students who need more support and guidance.”
That is better written than your comment. More lucid and straightforward. I suggest you replace yourself with ChatGPT
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Indeed it can teach things like how many maths students you can teach with x number of maths teachers and a budget of y.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Chatbots are quite inept at messing things up and absolutely even with access to calculators, doing mental arithmetic and being decent at it is very useful.
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
Lol at the trainspotter PBers who type a sum into a calculator then, apparently, go away and check the answer with a biro, notebook and 2 hours of long division
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Indeed it can teach things like how many maths students you can teach with x number of maths teachers and a budget of y.
Indeed. Though what's remarkable is just how debatable the idea of compulsory maths to 18 is in this country, its been bog standard in much of the world for decades now.
Maths was a compulsory subject in my A-level equivalent I did abroad at 17 (I skipped a year so finished early). I opted into doing Higher Maths which was not compulsory and an option to stretch for those who were good at maths.
Though I still find the idea people only do 3-4 subjects here at 16-18 weird.
I think you've misread my comment. I do have a Starling account, which I got specifically because it has zero fees abroad. So does Monzo although I believe that has some limits on cash withdrawals both in the UK and abroad.
A gap in the market (I think) is low or zero transaction fees on INcoming money. Starling etc. won't charge you to send money to someone, but I believe they do charge if someone abroad sends you money. Trranslation agencies send me monthly payments in Euro, and First Direct cackles evilly and deducts a slice every time. If anyone knows a solution to this, I'll buy them a drink...
If you have a Revolut card it can hold balances in Euros and other Revolut card holders can send you Euros with no fees.
Not sure how it would handle a bank transfer from, say, a Deutsche Bank account though.
One of my best mates is a maths teacher. She's incredibly smart (based on her ability at picking up boardgame rules and then winning), and would waltz into the analytical/stats part of my job.
The difference is that she loves teaching kids from tough backgrounds, particularly refugees with limited English who tend to better in maths than other subjects. I don't think there will ever be enough maths grads with that kind of personality to make the policy work.
Spot on. And that's why the compulsory GCSE resit for 16-18 year-olds has been such a failure. It takes extraordinarily talented teachers to motivate 16/17 year-olds to attend classes and work hard in a subject that they've already failed at school. And brilliant maths teachers earn quite a lot more in schools than they do in further education colleges. There aren't anywhere near enough people like your mate, particularly in FE.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Chatbots are quite inept at messing things up and absolutely even with access to calculators, doing mental arithmetic and being decent at it is very useful.
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
Lol at the trainspotter PBers who type a sum into a calculator then, apparently, go away and check the answer with a biro, notebook and 2 hours of long division
Way to miss the point - again!
If you're good at mental arithmetic you don't need to go away and check the answer for 2 hours. You should be able to know in your head roughly what the answer is and see if it fits within the right ballpark. If you've got an order of magnitude out, it should stand out like a sore thumb, but that only happens if you've got the mental arithmetic skills as a baseline.
The problem with calculators and chatbots etc is the classic problem of GIGO. Not to forget PEBKAC.
Oh, and anyone who wanted to see applied maths in action, should have been watching the darts last night.
If you start needing 107, go for treble-19 and get the single, what’s your next dart if you want to leave either 40 or 32? You have one second, and likely don’t have A-level maths.
In fairness, I suspect from my amateur arrows that a large part of what the professionals do is learning by repetition and pattern recognition not calculation. I would have to calculate what's left but then I know from practice that 88 is treble 16 and tops - and I'd have done the "what if" calculation before throwing the first dart. I would imagine the pros don't even need to do the calculation in step one.
Edit to add: I wouldn't actually go for 19s in this situation, even if you hit the treble you aren't going for bull with your second dart. 60 leaves 47 and you can pick your favourite double from there. You need at least one treble to finish 107 (or two bulls if you want to be a real show off) and most players are best on 20s.
Unless you're a very good player I always think 11 or 6 is a better finishing double as most players are more accurate in the X axis than the Y axis. Although 3 is my most reliable double for some reason. I can hit it about 5/6 darts.
The maths is trivial for regular players as there aren't that many finishing combinations so it's just rote memorisation. Even "Inbred Jed" at our local can do it and he uses a length of car seat belt to keep his trousers up. So fuck maths and fuck the tories.
Yep, double 3 is the one. It's dead straight with no angle and needs less power than any other shot on the Board. You just aim at the Bull and let it float down. Whole thing has a nice limp passive feel. No straining.
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Indeed it can teach things like how many maths students you can teach with x number of maths teachers and a budget of y.
Indeed. Though what's remarkable is just how debatable the idea of compulsory maths to 18 is in this country, its been bog standard in much of the world for decades now.
Maths was a compulsory subject in my A-level equivalent I did abroad at 17 (I skipped a year so finished early). I opted into doing Higher Maths which was not compulsory and an option to stretch for those who were good at maths.
Though I still find the idea people only do 3-4 subjects here at 16-18 weird.
The annoyance and frustration with the "policy" announcement is nothing to do with being anti Maths or anti Education.
It is simply a recognition that there are more immediate problems the government are silent on, and on maths education there is no additional budget, no plan, no extra training or budget for tens of thousands of new maths teachers, no increase in maths teacher salary to enable recruitment and retention and it is targeting kids at the wrong age anyway.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You should start a petition to get rid of “pocket calculators” because if you do “(1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.”
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve encountered this problem. You regularly see people throwing their phones into bins saying “I’m done with its calculator app thanks to this old hoary issue of BODMAS/PEMDAS”
Instead, they should be asking why after a series of major curriculum and exam reforms dating back ten years, we are still not teaching maths sufficiently in twelve years that an extra two years are needed on top.
Five minutes or so listening to the average politician and you will be thinking the country has a numeracy problem. I don't know if Sunak is proposing a viable approach to improving numeracy, but I do agree it is an area that needs work.
I think Sunak (and Truss for that matter) are unusual in being front line politicians who understand and love numbers. That is pretty rare in our politics. The problem is that they see only numbers, and there is more to life than those.
One of the defects of NHS management is that it too is just interested in numbers, hence the poor experience of many of our clients. The number of GP consultations is back above the 2019 level, 2/3 being face to face and more than 40% the same day, so looks great on paper. The bewilderment then comes from the poor quality of the whole experience. Things like continuity of care are highly valued in patient satisfaction surveys, yet are ignored by management.
The problem is measuring the wrong things.
When you look at the various articles on how we got to the current state, it is clear that the metrics used were producer interest - The treasury, the managers etc.
The patient outcomes came second.
It is perfectly possible to run an organisation as “customer focused”. But it requires senior people to suck it up and smile when it’s a choice between their personal goals or the customer.
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Indeed it can teach things like how many maths students you can teach with x number of maths teachers and a budget of y.
Indeed. Though what's remarkable is just how debatable the idea of compulsory maths to 18 is in this country, its been bog standard in much of the world for decades now.
Maths was a compulsory subject in my A-level equivalent I did abroad at 17 (I skipped a year so finished early). I opted into doing Higher Maths which was not compulsory and an option to stretch for those who were good at maths.
Though I still find the idea people only do 3-4 subjects here at 16-18 weird.
16-19 education in other countries tends to be a rather different beast, wider but less deep. England's model of 3 A Levels is unusual, and is one of the reasons English degrees are only 3 years long.
Going broader isn't a bad idea in itself, but would have consequences which might be inconvenient. For example, it would likely mean 18 year old mathematicians knowing less maths than they do at present.
Besides, a certain kind of Conservative gets very defensive of the Gold Standard of A Levels...
Oh, and anyone who wanted to see applied maths in action, should have been watching the darts last night.
If you start needing 107, go for treble-19 and get the single, what’s your next dart if you want to leave either 40 or 32? You have one second, and likely don’t have A-level maths.
In fairness, I suspect from my amateur arrows that a large part of what the professionals do is learning by repetition and pattern recognition not calculation. I would have to calculate what's left but then I know from practice that 88 is treble 16 and tops - and I'd have done the "what if" calculation before throwing the first dart. I would imagine the pros don't even need to do the calculation in step one.
Edit to add: I wouldn't actually go for 19s in this situation, even if you hit the treble you aren't going for bull with your second dart. 60 leaves 47 and you can pick your favourite double from there. You need at least one treble to finish 107 (or two bulls if you want to be a real show off) and most players are best on 20s.
Unless you're a very good player I always think 11 or 6 is a better finishing double as most players are more accurate in the X axis than the Y axis. Although 3 is my most reliable double for some reason. I can hit it about 5/6 darts.
The maths is trivial for regular players as there aren't that many finishing combinations so it's just rote memorisation. Even "Inbred Jed" at our local can do it and he uses a length of car seat belt to keep his trousers up. So fuck maths and fuck the tories.
Yep, double 3 is the one. It's dead straight with no angle and needs less power than any other shot on the Board. You just aim at the Bull and let it float down. Whole thing has a nice limp passive feel. No straining.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Chatbots are quite inept at messing things up and absolutely even with access to calculators, doing mental arithmetic and being decent at it is very useful.
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
Lol at the trainspotter PBers who type a sum into a calculator then, apparently, go away and check the answer with a biro, notebook and 2 hours of long division
I love reading, but I need someone to write the book for me.
I like winning arguments on twitter, but I need someone to come up with the R package that allows me to quickly process STATS19 data and disprove the silly notion that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers.
You need an understanding of basic English/maths/stats/coding to be able to do this stuff.
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Indeed it can teach things like how many maths students you can teach with x number of maths teachers and a budget of y.
Indeed. Though what's remarkable is just how debatable the idea of compulsory maths to 18 is in this country, its been bog standard in much of the world for decades now.
Maths was a compulsory subject in my A-level equivalent I did abroad at 17 (I skipped a year so finished early). I opted into doing Higher Maths which was not compulsory and an option to stretch for those who were good at maths.
Though I still find the idea people only do 3-4 subjects here at 16-18 weird.
16-19 education in other countries tends to be a rather different beast, wider but less deep. England's model of 3 A Levels is unusual, and is one of the reasons English degrees are only 3 years long.
Going broader isn't a bad idea in itself, but would have consequences which might be inconvenient. For example, it would likely mean 18 year old mathematicians knowing less maths than they do at present.
Besides, a certain kind of Conservative gets very defensive of the Gold Standard of A Levels...
Not all overseas courses are less deep than the A Levels. I did the International Baccalaureate, where you do 3 Higher and 3 Standard subjects, plus 3 extra things including Theory of Knowledge (basically philosophy). The 3 Higher subjects are just as deep and to the same standard as A-Levels.
A Levels are only a Gold Standard in the same way as the NHS is World Beating. Just because something is British doesn't necessarily make it the best.
We do not have a 'fuck Maths' attitude. We have a balanced one, which accepts the fact that people have different skill sets and brain wiring. I happen to be good at English but I wouldn't be so fucking stupid, downright wicked, as to impose that on everyone else until it was drilled into them. I wouldn't want a brilliant mathematician to have to work their way through Chaucer until they're 18. Or someone with the gift of languages. Post-16 is an opportunity to begin specialising. We're not for the most part an IB country, we have Advanced levels which are actually a bloody good set of qualifications.
(Snip)
Whilst I have some sympathy with the above, we do have a massive problem with functional illiteracy and innumeracy in this country. Anyone who is functionally illiterate and/or innumerate is at a big disadvantage in life, and has been let down by the schools system, themselves and their parents.
If studying up to 18 means things like getting core skills into those left behind, then I'm all for it.
Yet all the evidence is that better early years education is more important. Perhaps funding SureStart instead of closing a third of the centers down might help......
Well, yes. As a counter, it would be interesting to see if functional innumeracy and illiteracy altered for those kids 'helped' by SureStart. And to widen that as well; things like crime.
The scheme's been going for 25 years, so if we take primary school age kids, then there should be well over a decade of data for it.
I went to a SureStart baby club when the little 'un was a baby. It was useful. But the NCT classes we attended (as sensible middle-class folk) were much more useful. Perhaps widening access to NCT-style schemes for first-time parents may be a big advantage?
I wonder what the effect of mailing a full set of The Oxford Reading Tree to every new parent in the country would be?
A lot of land fill, yes. But even if it kicked up the “loves reading for fun” group a few percent….
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
But the older calculator was perfectly correct, allowing for the fact that it is limited as to sig figs. And who looks up one third of three on a calculator anyway?
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
I mentally compare the result with the approximation I have guessed at.
Because fat fingers happen.
My wife caught a near miss-dosage of medicine for my daughter in hospital by doing this.
Some Brexiters have got in touch to tell me I’m making stuff up when I say that Vote Leave campaigned on the idea that Brexit would mean shorter wait times for medical treatment. So, here is the evidence: https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1609937981522976770
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
But the older calculator was perfectly correct, allowing for the fact that it is limited as to sig figs. And who looks up one third of three on a calculator anyway?
Ignoring the rounding issue, the bigger issue on many calculators is that if you enter an equation such as 1+3/4 you get the answer of 1.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
*I've used both extensively and for some more complex things than the typical user. LibreOffice used to have a bit advantage on large text docs, particularly with many images, which used to cause MS Word crashes/freezes, but MS Word now much improved. The MS things are better presented (I'm actually a fan of the ribbon interface, which can be copied in LO but is not default). Nowadays I tend to use both only for very simple things, mostly I'm in R, SQL, Stata or some other IDE for Python etc.
About 10 years or so ago Microsoft undertook a rewrite/refactoring of Office so that they could deliver it as a Web app (Office online) and as a mobile app for phones and tablets. Most of the Office code, which is millions and millions of lines, is now highly portable, with only UI and platform adaption layers being native to the host OS/platform. For any invididual Office app about 90%+ of the code is shared across platforms. It was a huge project and went mostly unnoticed by users, but has made Office a better product which it is easier for Microsoft to maintain and update. That doesn't mean it's always the right tool for the job, but it has certainly improved greatly compared to the Office of 20 years ago.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
But the older calculator was perfectly correct, allowing for the fact that it is limited as to sig figs. And who looks up one third of three on a calculator anyway?
Ignoring the rounding issue, the bigger issue on many calculators is that if you enter an equation such as 1+3/4 you get the answer of 1.
Yes, you have to understand that it does things linearly. Bodmas was only ever a convention anyway.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Chatbots are quite inept at messing things up and absolutely even with access to calculators, doing mental arithmetic and being decent at it is very useful.
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
Lol at the trainspotter PBers who type a sum into a calculator then, apparently, go away and check the answer with a biro, notebook and 2 hours of long division
Way to miss the point - again!
If you're good at mental arithmetic you don't need to go away and check the answer for 2 hours. You should be able to know in your head roughly what the answer is and see if it fits within the right ballpark. If you've got an order of magnitude out, it should stand out like a sore thumb, but that only happens if you've got the mental arithmetic skills as a baseline.
The problem with calculators and chatbots etc is the classic problem of GIGO. Not to forget PEBKAC.
Yes, I am reminded of my ill-advised foray into teaching physics to lower-set secondary school pupils. Whatever the exercise, they had a tendency to simply divide the larger number by the smaller number, using their calculator, and call that the answer. When I pointed out that they had the wrong answer because they hadn't understood the question, they'd reply that the answer must be correct because that's what the calculator said!
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
It won't if there isn't any manufacturing base there already. The countries with manufacturing domination will hold on to it.
The other thing Leon needs to think about is the possible combination of AI, and corporate personhood - particularly in the US, where the legal rights of corporations compared with their limited legal responsibilities would be quite alarming.
The entire PB debate this morning is almost completely pointless. Why? Because it ignores AI
It’s like a bunch of people discussing the widening of roads to incorporate horse-drawn omnibuses in 1901
“Microsoft plans to release a version of Bing that uses OpenAI's #ChatGPT tech to answer some search queries, possibly launching as soon as Q1 2023 (Aaron Holmes/The Information) #AI pulse.ly/jzf7onqvp7 @BetaMoroney@IanLJones98@Shi4Tech@lyakovet@enilev@EvaSmartAI”
AI is about to transform the world. One of the first sectors to be revolutionised (devastated?) is education
Teaching people more maths is arguably like training adolescents to carry sedan chairs
While your 'everything is pointless because...' posts are becoming a little hackneyed, you do touch on a fair point about secondary education's disconnect from the world.
That's not going to be resolved by government setting a national curriculum - particularly this government.
Does he though? How does not teaching maths help create the next generation of data scientists and ML engineers? If anything we need to be starting tougher concepts at an earlier age and raising expectations, not dumbing down.
See my above reply to Leon. Regarding maths, it's not a question of 'tougher' concepts, but rather what concepts.
As an example, the 'new math' taught for a time in the US, post the Sputnik panic, comprised much more fundamental mathematical concepts, but it wasn't actually 'tougher'; instead completely unfamiliar to anyone with a conventional high school maths education.
I remember about the age of 16 rejecting maths when (a) it got quite hard and (b) it felt overwhelmingly pointless. I knew by then that my future work would not involve “shearing” or *calculus*
I could still do the maths - with effort - but it’s redundancy irked. So, emotionally I gave up, and dropped it soon after
Much of education will soon be like this for billions of school kids. Learning maths will be like learning Latin: nice to have, probably good for the brain, but, really, what’s the point?
Same goes for history, English, art, almost everything. The machines will do it all better - a machine you carry in your pocket. The only purpose of learning will be to acquire a pleasant skill that will never financially reward you. Like learning clarinet to grade 5
99% of people haven’t begun to grasp this. Including our prime minister
"but, really, what’s the point? "
*) Sanity checking. If someone (or a computer) tells you something, does it feel correct? You don't need to do a Fermi estimation, but knowing that, for example, the area of a circle radius 5cm is not 1,260 cm is a big advantage.
*) Knowing what questions to ask. If you do not have the basic knowledge, the chances are that you will end up asking the wrong question. And that's not just the case for maths.
*) When you don't have access to a computer/calculator. This can happen surprisingly often, even nowadays.
And many more. Your attitude is just to create generations of ignoramuses, presumably modelled on yourself.
When you type in a query into a pocket calculator, do you then go away and check the answer on Google? No. You rely on it and accept it. Because it is almost certainly correct. The chatbots will very shortly be this good and reliable for every question
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
"Because it is almost certainly correct."
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
But the older calculator was perfectly correct, allowing for the fact that it is limited as to sig figs. And who looks up one third of three on a calculator anyway?
Ignoring the rounding issue, the bigger issue on many calculators is that if you enter an equation such as 1+3/4 you get the answer of 1.
Yes, you have to understand that it does things linearly. Bodmas was only ever a convention anyway.
Bodmas is more than a convention, and most calculators manage to do it properly and not screw it up. It helps to have the mental arithmetic to be able to know if something has made a mistake though, calculators are good tools but like any tool you need to know how to use it.
I have a drill set and screwdriver set which are useful tools to help me build furniture from flat pack, but I couldn't just get some timber and build my own furniture - I need to know what to do with the stuff. Maths works the same way, if you have the basic skills then calculators can be useful to help you, but without the skills the calculator is no more a replacement for knowledge than owning a screwdriver makes you a master cabinetmaker.
A reminder: Only 15% of the population have an IQ level of 115 or above. An IQ above 115 is considered to be a 'High IQ'
For 85% of people advanced maths is simply pointless. They can’t do it and, besides, they have a tiny brilliant machine that can solve all practical daily maths questions, anyway
Soon they will have a new machine which they won’t even require numbers. You’ll just ask it the query “what is a third of a third”
In the desire to stick it to the Tories we've got a "fuck maths" attitude on here this morning.
I despair.
Thinking about this maths debacle, personally I am not a very mathsy person, and I have two areas where I feel my maths education suffered. First, I was put forward a year in primary school (being on the cusp of two years) and therefore missed being in Mrs. Killingbeck's class (Class 3). Mrs. Killingbeck was in the habit of drilling her class in the times tables. As a consequence, I never learned these off by heart (I know I could have taught myself, or my parents could have taught me), which I feel would have been great.
Secondly, in secondary school, being naturally reasonably intelligent, I was in the tip tier for maths in second year. I was doing well with a small cohort of competitive kids. I was moved down into second to top tier because a few in the class had borderline grades and there were too many in the class. Different teacher, still bright kids but more prone to mucking around. That was the effective end of my maths 'career'. I'm not blaming anyone else for this - I could have tried a lot harder and still thrived in the new class, but it was the trigger.
I don't think I would have been helped by being forced to keep maths at A level. I think the important stuff happens much earlier. That's why I don't find this to be a very thought-through policy, and I don't think it will last the week. Which will make Sunak look even worse and ineffectual.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
It won't if there isn't any manufacturing base there already. The countries with manufacturing domination will hold on to it.
The other thing Leon needs to think about is the possible combination of AI, and corporate personhood - particularly in the US, where the legal rights of corporations compared with their limited legal responsibilities would be quite alarming.
{a number of lobsters, elevated to sentience, have entered the chat}
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
We do not have a 'fuck Maths' attitude. We have a balanced one, which accepts the fact that people have different skill sets and brain wiring. I happen to be good at English but I wouldn't be so fucking stupid, downright wicked, as to impose that on everyone else until it was drilled into them. I wouldn't want a brilliant mathematician to have to work their way through Chaucer until they're 18. Or someone with the gift of languages. Post-16 is an opportunity to begin specialising. We're not for the most part an IB country, we have Advanced levels which are actually a bloody good set of qualifications.
(Snip)
Whilst I have some sympathy with the above, we do have a massive problem with functional illiteracy and innumeracy in this country. Anyone who is functionally illiterate and/or innumerate is at a big disadvantage in life, and has been let down by the schools system, themselves and their parents.
If studying up to 18 means things like getting core skills into those left behind, then I'm all for it.
Yet all the evidence is that better early years education is more important. Perhaps funding SureStart instead of closing a third of the centers down might help......
Well, yes. As a counter, it would be interesting to see if functional innumeracy and illiteracy altered for those kids 'helped' by SureStart. And to widen that as well; things like crime.
The scheme's been going for 25 years, so if we take primary school age kids, then there should be well over a decade of data for it.
I went to a SureStart baby club when the little 'un was a baby. It was useful. But the NCT classes we attended (as sensible middle-class folk) were much more useful. Perhaps widening access to NCT-style schemes for first-time parents may be a big advantage?
I wonder what the effect of mailing a full set of The Oxford Reading Tree to every new parent in the country would be?
A lot of land fill, yes. But even if it kicked up the “loves reading for fun” group a few percent….
The effect of that would be horrendous. I mean, Oxford???
Give the Cambridge Reading Tree to every new parent then all one-year olds would be reading the Illiad. In Ancient Greek.
But we'd have to create a Cambridge Reading Tree. I wonder if Tom Knox would allow us to use some of his tomes? They would surely be educational for kids...
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
But if you do understand the concepts. Nice read on reverse engineering of GitHub Copilot 🪄. Copilot has dramatically accelerated my coding, it's hard to imagine going back to "manual coding". Still learning to use it but it already writes ~80% of my code, ~80% accuracy. I don't even really code, I prompt. & edit. https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1608895189078380544 (Independent researcher. Previously Director of AI at Tesla, OpenAI, CS231n, PhD @ Stanford. I like to train large deep neural nets)
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Yes this is why Labour's attack on the policy as "double maths" isn't a good one. It just makes them seem anti-learning and on the side of the celebrities and luvvies who revel in their lack of numeracy.
I'm not sure this is a good policy, compulsory maths until 18 doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons but I'm glad to have the discussion. There are too many people in our media who wear the GCSE D in maths as a badge of pride when it should be seen as shameful as not being able to read or write.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
That with respect is My 5 year old daughter draws better than Picasso talk.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Some reading for you. If it’s too difficult, you could ask ChatGPT to summarise it
“The College Essay Is Dead Nobody is prepared for how AI will transform academia.”
“Essay-writing chatbot could mean the end of homework, schools warn Head teachers worried that software using artificial intelligence to write human-like answers will lead to mass cheating”
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Yes, I'd like to see if the next iteration can do more, I've heard it's quite impressive but then again I also think the AI industry is going through the same stage as Blockchain was 5 or so years ago where everyone and his dog was saying they were a Blockchain company to get investors.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
This is too simplistic. Part of the reason we have a labour shortage is poor health. Spending on the NHS is good for people and good for the economy. And that's not just for working people - people spend a huge amount of time caring for unwell older people when they could be in work.
We should move fast to cut back on the one thing we do have control over - obesity.
I find it depressing reading how anti-education and anti-maths some people here are.
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
Yes this is why Labour's attack on the policy as "double maths" isn't a good one. It just makes them seem anti-learning and on the side of the celebrities and luvvies who revel in their lack of numeracy.
I'm not sure this is a good policy, compulsory maths until 18 doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons but I'm glad to have the discussion. There are too many people in our media who wear the GCSE D in maths as a badge of pride when it should be seen as shameful as not being able to read or write.
I agree, but as you acknowledge, this intervention is half-baked. The actual policy has not been thought through, and won't survive the duffing up it's going to get from teachers' unions etc. Sunak was meant to herald the return of dull competence, and so far he's only fulfilled half of that description, and it ain't the competence.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Some reading for you. If it’s too difficult, you could ask ChatGPT to summarise it
“The College Essay Is Dead Nobody is prepared for how AI will transform academia.”
“Essay-writing chatbot could mean the end of homework, schools warn Head teachers worried that software using artificial intelligence to write human-like answers will lead to mass cheating”
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Yes, I'd like to see if the next iteration can do more, I've heard it's quite impressive but then again I also think the AI industry is going through the same stage as Blockchain was 5 or so years ago where everyone and his dog was saying they were a Blockchain company to get investors.
The biggest difference I see between blockchain and AI is this: everyone instinctively understands what AI is and what it can do for us. Look at the popularity of ChatGPT and Dall:E. Whereas almost nobody really understands blockchain and those who do find it terribly difficult to articulate it in an understandable way.
I've had blockchain explained to me multiple times and just about have a sense of how it all fits together but I would be hard pushed to work out what it might do to improve my day to day life or work.
I believe that everyone has a hard conceptual limit in mathematics beyond which it becomes incredibly difficult to understand and apply.
Most people can do arithmetic. Some struggle with algebra, the introduction of variables. Then comes calculus with derivatives and integrals. Beyond that is tensors, lagrangians and hamiltonians, set theory, quantum mechanics and so on.
I read mathematics at Cambridge. Some of my friends, who had come up with maths scholarships, switched from maths after the first year to read law or economics because they couldn't cope with the additional abstraction.
My limit came with topology (knots and stretchable surfaces) but there was sufficient other stuff for me to get a decent degree.
My conclusion is that the idea of everyone doing maths to the age of 18 (A Level) is completely crackers. A level maths will be beyond a lot of people.
What is needed for the general population is sufficient knowledge of arithmetic, orders of magnitude, managing finances, basic statistics etc. Practical stuff. To age16. Algebra of calculus isn't required. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
If ChatGPT is anything to go by, the jobs most at risk are those that involve writing vaguely convincing fluff pieces. Estate agent marketing blurb comes to mind. It's useless for anything that involves actually understanding concepts.
Yes, I'd like to see if the next iteration can do more, I've heard it's quite impressive but then again I also think the AI industry is going through the same stage as Blockchain was 5 or so years ago where everyone and his dog was saying they were a Blockchain company to get investors.
The biggest difference I see between blockchain and AI is this: everyone instinctively understands what AI is and what it can do for us. Look at the popularity of ChatGPT and Dall:E. Whereas almost nobody really understands blockchain and those who do find it terribly difficult to articulate it in an understandable way.
I've had blockchain explained to me multiple times and just about have a sense of how it all fits together but I would be hard pushed to work out what it might do to improve my day to day life or work.
We use a Blockchain based employee referencing company. It's the first real world use of it I've seen that makes any kind of sense.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
That's not entirely true either. We are having fewer children and have been doing for some time, so with a falling birth rate even with static life expectancy (and it is showing signs of stalling and falling behind other countries) the proportion of the population in inactive age groups continues to rise for some time.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
One thing Leon does not appear to have considered in his foray into futurology is the potential impact on the UK economy of hyper-competent AI. If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
AI if it can do most professional jobs will surely do almost all advanced manufacturing anyway
It won't if there isn't any manufacturing base there already. The countries with manufacturing domination will hold on to it.
The other thing Leon needs to think about is the possible combination of AI, and corporate personhood - particularly in the US, where the legal rights of corporations compared with their limited legal responsibilities would be quite alarming.
{a number of lobsters, elevated to sentience, have entered the chat}
I don't think sentience is required; just the required set of programmed directions. It ought to be possible for at least a subset of businesses for the entire thing to be run without human directors.
That opens up some worrying problems about legal responsibility.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
That's not entirely true either. We are having fewer children and have been doing for some time, so with a falling birth rate even with static life expectancy (and it is showing signs of stalling and falling behind other countries) the proportion of the population in inactive age groups continues to rise for some time.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
But that's all part of the same problem, we have falling birthrates because it's too expensive for families to have more than two kids, it's too expensive to have more than two kids because taxes are so high to pay for all the old people to live forever.
Health spending has not kept up with population growth + ageing/obesity + health inflation.
This is especially true with respect to capital investment, or in simplest terms, “beds”.
On top of those limitations, we can’t release people quickly enough from hospital into social care because (a) we don’t fund that properly either, and (b) we’ve lost a lot of staff from that sector.
Covid’s overhang continues to mean acute pressures; people are just sicker than they were before.
Apparently Rishi is fully focused on this (alongside his maths idea) so let’s see what he has to say.
“Forget year in review: lets talk about how technology transformed education in the last MONTH thanks to ChatGPT 💥How to use it to educate: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/how-to-use-a… 👨🏫Automating my job as a professor: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-mechanic… 🤖How my students are using it: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-street-f…
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
Life expectancy had been flat since 2010. It's actually just a glut of Boomers passing through NHS. Should be a bit better from the 2040s as they die off.
Health spending has not kept up with population growth + ageing/obesity + health inflation.
This is especially true with respect to capital investment, or in simplest terms, “beds”.
On top of those limitations, we can’t release people quickly enough from hospital into social care because (a) we don’t fund that properly either, and (b) we’ve lost a lot of staff from that sector.
Covid’s overhang continues to mean acute pressures; people are just sicker than they were before.
Apparently Rishi is fully focused on this (alongside his maths idea) so let’s see what he has to say.
The first point is the most important and the problem that Bart is pointing out is that in this environment of ageing/obesity the NHS is still attempting to extend life expectancy. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to accept we live in a resource limited environment and stop extending life expectancy.
I believe that everyone has a hard conceptual limit in mathematics beyond which it becomes incredibly difficult to understand and apply.
Most people can do arithmetic. Some struggle with algebra, the introduction of variables. Then comes calculus with derivatives and integrals. Beyond that is tensors, lagrangians and hamiltonians, set theory, quantum mechanics and so on.
I read mathematics at Cambridge. Some of my friends, who had come up with maths scholarships, switched from maths after the first year to read law or economics because they couldn't cope with the additional abstraction.
My limit came with topology (knots and stretchable surfaces) but there was sufficient other stuff for me to get a decent degree.
My conclusion is that the idea of everyone doing maths to the age of 18 (A Level) is completely crackers. A level maths will be beyond a lot of people.
What is needed for the general population is sufficient knowledge of arithmetic, orders of magnitude, managing finances, basic statistics etc. Practical stuff. To age16. Algebra of calculus isn't required. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist.
It's quite possible to teach set theory well before university. And it actually makes a lot of sense to teach some of the 'abstractions' to younger more receptive minds. Going through school learning only the conventional curriculum possibly militates against later learning.
I believe that everyone has a hard conceptual limit in mathematics beyond which it becomes incredibly difficult to understand and apply.
Most people can do arithmetic. Some struggle with algebra, the introduction of variables. Then comes calculus with derivatives and integrals. Beyond that is tensors, lagrangians and hamiltonians, set theory, quantum mechanics and so on.
I read mathematics at Cambridge. Some of my friends, who had come up with maths scholarships, switched from maths after the first year to read law or economics because they couldn't cope with the additional abstraction.
My limit came with topology (knots and stretchable surfaces) but there was sufficient other stuff for me to get a decent degree.
My conclusion is that the idea of everyone doing maths to the age of 18 (A Level) is completely crackers. A level maths will be beyond a lot of people.
What is needed for the general population is sufficient knowledge of arithmetic, orders of magnitude, managing finances, basic statistics etc. Practical stuff. To age16. Algebra of calculus isn't required. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist.
Everyone should know algebra, surely. It's such a useful tool for solving problems and understanding things.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
That's not entirely true either. We are having fewer children and have been doing for some time, so with a falling birth rate even with static life expectancy (and it is showing signs of stalling and falling behind other countries) the proportion of the population in inactive age groups continues to rise for some time.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
But that's all part of the same problem, we have falling birthrates because it's too expensive for families to have more than two kids, it's too expensive to have more than two kids because taxes are so high to pay for all the old people to live forever.
Taxes were higher in the 1970s, more women in the workforce, more people going to university and starting work and families later and higher house prices in London and the South are also key
I believe that everyone has a hard conceptual limit in mathematics beyond which it becomes incredibly difficult to understand and apply.
Most people can do arithmetic. Some struggle with algebra, the introduction of variables. Then comes calculus with derivatives and integrals. Beyond that is tensors, lagrangians and hamiltonians, set theory, quantum mechanics and so on.
I read mathematics at Cambridge. Some of my friends, who had come up with maths scholarships, switched from maths after the first year to read law or economics because they couldn't cope with the additional abstraction.
My limit came with topology (knots and stretchable surfaces) but there was sufficient other stuff for me to get a decent degree.
My conclusion is that the idea of everyone doing maths to the age of 18 (A Level) is completely crackers. A level maths will be beyond a lot of people.
What is needed for the general population is sufficient knowledge of arithmetic, orders of magnitude, managing finances, basic statistics etc. Practical stuff. To age16. Algebra of calculus isn't required. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist.
Everyone should know algebra, surely. It's such a useful tool for solving problems and understanding things.
Yes, understanding unknowns and figuring them out. It's a vital skill that people don't realise they use after they've learned it.
“Forget year in review: lets talk about how technology transformed education in the last MONTH thanks to ChatGPT 💥How to use it to educate: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/how-to-use-a… 👨🏫Automating my job as a professor: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-mechanic… 🤖How my students are using it: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-street-f…
Will it be able to coax, cajole, incentivise, reward, engage, threaten, etc., unwilling children to participate? Ensure they don't bugger off, climb the fence and go on the main road? And chase them when they do? Because until it does that it won't replace my job. Sure. If a student desperately wants to learn it's an invaluable resource. But that is far from the majority.
Health spending has not kept up with population growth + ageing/obesity + health inflation.
This is especially true with respect to capital investment, or in simplest terms, “beds”.
On top of those limitations, we can’t release people quickly enough from hospital into social care because (a) we don’t fund that properly either, and (b) we’ve lost a lot of staff from that sector.
Covid’s overhang continues to mean acute pressures; people are just sicker than they were before.
Apparently Rishi is fully focused on this (alongside his maths idea) so let’s see what he has to say.
The first point is the most important and the problem that Bart is pointing out is that in this environment of ageing/obesity the NHS is still attempting to extend life expectancy. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to accept we live in a resource limited environment and stop extending life expectancy.
I don’t think we should give up on life expectancy.
It’s a bit like the AI snippets just posted by Leon. Yes, it makes homework harder. But yes, it revolutionises teaching.
Instead, we have to adapt our economies to longer living, which means essentially working longer. We want to avoid Italy’s fate, where two workers are supporting one retiree and that is projected to go 1:1.
Which is, of course, incorrect. 1/3 is not 0.333333, and 0.333333 * 3 is not 1. While the error may be small, it is important to understand that rounding errors exist and the circumstances under which they may be significant. ChatGPT has failed to grasp the point of the question.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
That's not entirely true either. We are having fewer children and have been doing for some time, so with a falling birth rate even with static life expectancy (and it is showing signs of stalling and falling behind other countries) the proportion of the population in inactive age groups continues to rise for some time.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
But that's all part of the same problem, we have falling birthrates because it's too expensive for families to have more than two kids, it's too expensive to have more than two kids because taxes are so high to pay for all the old people to live forever.
I don’t think anyone has suggested birth rates are lower because of tax rates. In any case it’s a demographic trend in almost every country in the world including those with virtually no taxation. I doubt there’s any correlation - I might see if ChatGPT can do the maths for me.
Yes, because it's a well-known problem. And if you read my post, you'd note I said *older* calculators. The point is that there are a whole host of problems such as that. They can matter rather a lot.
Very good, but when I ask the question how much funding is needed the answers on PB is that funding isn't actually the problem. I have never seen anyone say how much funding (in £s or % of GDP or any other form) would be enough.
It's pretty simple - create an age profile of spending in the NHS, apply an ONS population projection, multiply by labour productivity projection (proxy for wages), multiply by some factor that represents obesity trends and technological advances
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
And when, if ever, do we say that the NHS has enough funding, that its got a budget and simply has to do as well as it can with that - and if that means not saving everyone, then not everyone gets saved?
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
The depressing maths behind the demographic blanket bombing we are facing is true enough though. The country is ageing and living longer while health metrics like obesity are getting worse. So if we ration healthcare to make a difference, then we have to ration it for the old because that's where the demand is.
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Well yes, the demographic problem is only because life expectancy is so high. If people were dying sooner, then the demographic problem goes away.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
That's not entirely true either. We are having fewer children and have been doing for some time, so with a falling birth rate even with static life expectancy (and it is showing signs of stalling and falling behind other countries) the proportion of the population in inactive age groups continues to rise for some time.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
But that's all part of the same problem, we have falling birthrates because it's too expensive for families to have more than two kids, it's too expensive to have more than two kids because taxes are so high to pay for all the old people to live forever.
Taxes were higher in the 1970s, more women in the workforce, more people going to university and starting work and families later and higher house prices in London and the South
Higher house prices everywhere, unaffordable prices in London and the South East. Tax as a proportion of GDP is higher now than at any point in the 1970s I think. Personal taxation may be lower but indirect taxes are significantly higher which raises the cost of living substantially and taxes on production are higher which means payrises are slower than they would otherwise be.
Comments
The Head Count would be better off starting down’t pit at 14 etc.
The difference is that she loves teaching kids from tough backgrounds, particularly refugees with limited English who tend to better in maths than other subjects. I don't think there will ever be enough maths grads with that kind of personality to make the policy work.
Honestly, your inability to grasp this shit is clownish
Learning is valuable for its own sake and maths is a useful skill for how to think and how to apply logic. Even if some of it isn't used later on, having the ability to think things through logically is a useful skill for life.
If this is what Team Rishi has chosen as the exciting teaser for Rishi's Big Vision, the cupboard really must be bare.
However, I do like Sunak personally and it's no secret that my principles and values are conservative so there will be times when I do agree with what they're doing.
I remember how you were virtually the only regular Labour poster other than Nick Palmer publicly defending Gordon Brown on here come 2010!
That first point of sanity checking is very useful. Its certainly possible to put something into a calculator then it fails the sanity check and realise eg got an order of magnitude out so the calculation was wrong, if you can't do mental arithmetic or know how to sanity check then you are really losing out.
And its your inability to grasp that shit which is clownish.
And so then people will want to learn Maths because they are fascinated by it, or because they need it to pursue their interest in treehouse construction, etc.
But after several years and using multiple clients' systems and processes I am in the process of migrating everything from Google Workspace to Microsoft 365. Windows 11 and the latest versions are usable enough to not be a pain in the arse, and its easier to just accept that and crawl back to Redmond.
Helps that I absolutely adore my Surface Pro 8.
If the potential of its replacing well paid service jobs (accountancy, law, finance, etc) is fulfilled, then the possession of an advanced manufacturing base of significant scale will be essential to future prosperity. Which is not good news for us.
There's perhaps a decade available to rectify that.
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/mathematics/aqa-certificate/further-mathematics-8365/
Add in the fact that there are commercial satellites right now capable of connecting to phones (in a limited manner). Yes, signals intelligence has just gone commercial.
Guess whose giant LEO network is in a deal to sell this as a service? The phone connection stuff, not sig int. Though they have also just launched a military offering - which might well include sig int…..
So I asked ChatGPT to shorten it and clarify it. Herewith:
“Private schools are known for imparting a higher quality of education, as measured by exams. However, this may not be due to the students being inherently different from those in state schools, but rather due to the fact that private schools often have more resources and can therefore provide more individualized instruction.
“Some students may be self-motivated and able to teach themselves, but the majority of students benefit from more direct teaching and support. The state school system may struggle to provide this level of support due to limited resources, leading to a gap in achievement between private and state schools, particularly for bright but not necessarily genius students who need more support and guidance.”
That is better written than your comment. More lucid and straightforward. I suggest you replace yourself with ChatGPT
Oh jesus. You have *zero* idea about the way calculators work. For many calculations, they *do* give 'wrong' answers - particularly with division, and especially if the user is inexperienced in using them.
Then there are the old hoary issues of BODMAS/PEMDAS etc.
As an example, if you did (1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.
Maths was a compulsory subject in my A-level equivalent I did abroad at 17 (I skipped a year so finished early). I opted into doing Higher Maths which was not compulsory and an option to stretch for those who were good at maths.
Though I still find the idea people only do 3-4 subjects here at 16-18 weird.
Not sure how it would handle a bank transfer from, say, a Deutsche Bank account though.
If you're good at mental arithmetic you don't need to go away and check the answer for 2 hours. You should be able to know in your head roughly what the answer is and see if it fits within the right ballpark. If you've got an order of magnitude out, it should stand out like a sore thumb, but that only happens if you've got the mental arithmetic skills as a baseline.
The problem with calculators and chatbots etc is the classic problem of GIGO. Not to forget PEBKAC.
It is simply a recognition that there are more immediate problems the government are silent on, and on maths education there is no additional budget, no plan, no extra training or budget for tens of thousands of new maths teachers, no increase in maths teacher salary to enable recruitment and retention and it is targeting kids at the wrong age anyway.
Otherwise it all adds up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You should start a petition to get rid of “pocket calculators” because if you do “(1/3)*3 on many older calculators, you would end up with 0.999999, not 1.”
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve encountered this problem. You regularly see people throwing their phones into bins saying “I’m done with its calculator app thanks to this old hoary issue of BODMAS/PEMDAS”
When you look at the various articles on how we got to the current state, it is clear that the metrics used were producer interest - The treasury, the managers etc.
The patient outcomes came second.
It is perfectly possible to run an organisation as “customer focused”. But it requires senior people to suck it up and smile when it’s a choice between their personal goals or the customer.
Going broader isn't a bad idea in itself, but would have consequences which might be inconvenient. For example, it would likely mean 18 year old mathematicians knowing less maths than they do at present.
Besides, a certain kind of Conservative gets very defensive of the Gold Standard of A Levels...
Now you’ve gone and done it. I am stuck in a recursion…
I like winning arguments on twitter, but I need someone to come up with the R package that allows me to quickly process STATS19 data and disprove the silly notion that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers.
You need an understanding of basic English/maths/stats/coding to be able to do this stuff.
A Levels are only a Gold Standard in the same way as the NHS is World Beating. Just because something is British doesn't necessarily make it the best.
A lot of land fill, yes. But even if it kicked up the “loves reading for fun” group a few percent….
Because fat fingers happen.
My wife caught a near miss-dosage of medicine for my daughter in hospital by doing this.
https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1609937981522976770
Rishi announces a πr^2h/3, for various r and h, hotline.
The countries with manufacturing domination will hold on to it.
The other thing Leon needs to think about is the possible combination of AI, and corporate personhood - particularly in the US, where the legal rights of corporations compared with their limited legal responsibilities would be quite alarming.
I have a drill set and screwdriver set which are useful tools to help me build furniture from flat pack, but I couldn't just get some timber and build my own furniture - I need to know what to do with the stuff. Maths works the same way, if you have the basic skills then calculators can be useful to help you, but without the skills the calculator is no more a replacement for knowledge than owning a screwdriver makes you a master cabinetmaker.
For 85% of people advanced maths is simply pointless. They can’t do it and, besides, they have a tiny brilliant machine that can solve all practical daily maths questions, anyway
Soon they will have a new machine which they won’t even require numbers. You’ll just ask it the query “what is a third of a third”
Secondly, in secondary school, being naturally reasonably intelligent, I was in the tip tier for maths in second year. I was doing well with a small cohort of competitive kids. I was moved down into second to top tier because a few in the class had borderline grades and there were too many in the class. Different teacher, still bright kids but more prone to mucking around. That was the effective end of my maths 'career'. I'm not blaming anyone else for this - I could have tried a lot harder and still thrived in the new class, but it was the trigger.
I don't think I would have been helped by being forced to keep maths at A level. I think the important stuff happens much earlier. That's why I don't find this to be a very thought-through policy, and I don't think it will last the week. Which will make Sunak look even worse and ineffectual.
= massive increase in % of GDP on health
We spent years locked down to "save the NHS" and the NHS funding has been ringfenced and avoided austerity for decades. Its almost like nothing will ever be enough.
Give the Cambridge Reading Tree to every new parent then all one-year olds would be reading the Illiad. In Ancient Greek.
But we'd have to create a Cambridge Reading Tree. I wonder if Tom Knox would allow us to use some of his tomes? They would surely be educational for kids...
Nice read on reverse engineering of GitHub Copilot 🪄. Copilot has dramatically accelerated my coding, it's hard to imagine going back to "manual coding". Still learning to use it but it already writes ~80% of my code, ~80% accuracy. I don't even really code, I prompt. & edit.
https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1608895189078380544
(Independent researcher. Previously Director of AI at Tesla, OpenAI, CS231n, PhD @ Stanford. I like to train large deep neural nets)
I'm not sure this is a good policy, compulsory maths until 18 doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons but I'm glad to have the discussion. There are too many people in our media who wear the GCSE D in maths as a badge of pride when it should be seen as shameful as not being able to read or write.
It is that this is the major policy speech of the new PM at this time.
“The College Essay Is Dead
Nobody is prepared for how AI will transform academia.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-ai-writing-college-student-essays/672371/
Meanwhile:
“Essay-writing chatbot could mean the end of homework, schools warn
Head teachers worried that software using artificial intelligence to write human-like answers will lead to mass cheating”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/29/essay-writing-chatbot-could-mean-end-homework-schools-warn/
An alternative would be to encourage mass emigration of retirees to sunny climes elsewhere, based on reciprocal social secutiry arrangements.
Watch out for the rascals sending you out for tartan Tipex.
We should move fast to cut back on the one thing we do have control over - obesity.
Yet all the talk of the NHS is how to ensure people live longer, then wonder why we need more money for the NHS. That's a self-fulfilling problem, you can't give the NHS enough money to make the demographic issue go away because as soon as you do, people will live even longer, and the problem is redoubled.
I've had blockchain explained to me multiple times and just about have a sense of how it all fits together but I would be hard pushed to work out what it might do to improve my day to day life or work.
Most people can do arithmetic. Some struggle with algebra, the introduction of variables. Then comes calculus with derivatives and integrals. Beyond that is tensors, lagrangians and hamiltonians, set theory, quantum mechanics and so on.
I read mathematics at Cambridge. Some of my friends, who had come up with maths scholarships, switched from maths after the first year to read law or economics because they couldn't cope with the additional abstraction.
My limit came with topology (knots and stretchable surfaces) but there was sufficient other stuff for me to get a decent degree.
My conclusion is that the idea of everyone doing maths to the age of 18 (A Level) is completely crackers. A level maths will be beyond a lot of people.
What is needed for the general population is sufficient knowledge of arithmetic, orders of magnitude, managing finances, basic statistics etc. Practical stuff. To age16. Algebra of calculus isn't required. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist.
Healthcare may improve LE a little but what a really good health and social care system should be able to do much better is reducing morbidity and increasing quality of life. That should then relieve pressure on healthcare provision for chronic conditions like diabetes, which among the big drains on resources.
It ought to be possible for at least a subset of businesses for the entire thing to be run without human directors.
That opens up some worrying problems about legal responsibility.
This is especially true with respect to capital investment, or in simplest terms, “beds”.
On top of those limitations, we can’t release people quickly enough from hospital into social care because (a) we don’t fund that properly either, and (b) we’ve lost a lot of staff from that sector.
Covid’s overhang continues to mean acute pressures; people are just sicker than they were before.
Apparently Rishi is fully focused on this (alongside his maths idea) so let’s see what he has to say.
“Still think ChatGPT is bad for education?
I just gave it a mark scheme and a sample student answer from an AQA GCSE English Language paper.
Look what happened 👇
*Spoiler: It marked it accurately in seconds*
#education #edutwitter #edtech #AI”
https://twitter.com/danfitztweets/status/1609675061211930625?s=46&t=5D3OrwpAXOPOwYLcHjcJzg
And kids all over the world can get one-to-one tuition
“The one thing we know works for education is 1-1 tutoring vs one-to-many classroom
1-1 tutoring with humans for everyone is economically infeasible
But the promise of AI and ChatGPT systems will be 1-1 tutoring for everyone in the world”
https://twitter.com/alexandr_wang/status/1608996309897465856?s=46&t=5D3OrwpAXOPOwYLcHjcJzg
But be in no doubt, the Revolution is here
“Forget year in review: lets talk about how technology transformed education in the last MONTH thanks to ChatGPT
💥How to use it to educate: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/how-to-use-a…
👨🏫Automating my job as a professor: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-mechanic…
🤖How my students are using it: oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/the-street-f…
https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1608814300805861377?s=46&t=5D3OrwpAXOPOwYLcHjcJzg
Perhaps earlier if the NHS really does collapse.
And it actually makes a lot of sense to teach some of the 'abstractions' to younger more receptive minds. Going through school learning only the conventional curriculum possibly militates against later learning.
Ensure they don't bugger off, climb the fence and go on the main road? And chase them when they do?
Because until it does that it won't replace my job.
Sure. If a student desperately wants to learn it's an invaluable resource. But that is far from the majority.
It’s a bit like the AI snippets just posted by Leon. Yes, it makes homework harder. But yes, it revolutionises teaching.
Instead, we have to adapt our economies to longer living, which means essentially working longer. We want to avoid Italy’s fate, where two workers are supporting one retiree and that is projected to go 1:1.
That's right. Shit just got real.