UncleMeat

That is not the reason. The reason is that they wanted the model to have access to libraries when it was writing code to solve the eval problems. So they gave it a package manager.

I don't know if advertising a diet of primarily beef and sauerkraut is walking the walk. His opinion of what "healthy food" is is based in vibes and conspiracy rather than scientific rigor.

LLMs are very good at programming. This is clear. Software engineering will look very different in 2030 than it did in 2020. There are also opportunities now for people to use code to solve problems that weren't previously economical because hiring a programmer was expensive.

Will AI function the same way in all domains? That is the current narrative.

"Eat healthy food and exercise" has been recommendation #1 for ages. The idea that RFK and his friends are somehow novel in this public communication is bizarre.

A 60 year old was born in 1966 and started their career in the mid 80s. That's displaced pretty far from ww2.

Fage and parsley are up substantially since 2020. The rest has been pretty stable, at least near me.

Where?

At least where I live if I went to Kroger I’d spend $6 on bread, two tubs of Fage would be $14, eggs are like $3, the parsley would be like $1.50 and the rest of the veggies comes out to about $5.

Programs that expand recruiting beyond the typical prestigious university track can accomplish this.

A great thing about literature is that it can be expressed in different contexts. A piece of art being about one thing at one time does not mean that we cannot use that art to explore a different thing at a different time.

I do not believe that AI weapons will reduce civilian casualties. Maybe per strike it will but we also know that when we give people new capabilities they will use them more. Suddenly instead of taking time to select targets you can ask an AI and boom you've got a thousand targets and you are off to the races.

It is very clear that you are not talking about height.

You are also different policy treatment of these groups.

I didn't say humanities majors don't earn more. People who earn more with their degree aren't the contention. The contention is the nebulous, intrinsic value of a "more educated society", c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48880930

What? What is going on with this quote then?

"The test itself is simple: If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college, that program could be cut off from federal student loans. The same goes for any graduate program whose graduates earn less than someone with only a bachelor's degree."

The constitution might've been mandated as part of the curriculum. That doesn't say much. The question in this subthread was about the relation between "education received" and "amount of knowledge possessed", to which I replied that I doubt most American college educated adults have actually read the constitution.

Up thread you said you doubted most college educated adults had read the constitution. You then repeated this. Now reading it isn't relevant? I have absolutely no idea what you are looking for here.

If your position is to simply assume that everybody is not doing any of the reading in a humanities class and then conclude that the classes must be useless then what can I possibly do here? We can have data demonstrating that humanities graduates earn higher wages than non-graduates. We can have curricula that include the materials you want people to learn.

Or if you actually want to learn the material, can you just do so?

A university education gives you access to faculty members who are experts in the material they are teaching and who construct syllabi that are effective at teaching certain concepts and who can provide feedback on a student's analysis of those readings. They can also teach archival research skills that you'd never learn by just looking up famous books online. That is valuable.

----

I still am really struggling to understand specifically what you are frustrated by here. Can you give me an example of some specific interaction you've had with a person that you would attribute to the ineffectiveness of a contemporary humanities education?

That is not true. Disparate impact has never meant "literally anything that produces disparate impact is against the law." I guess until the Trump admin has started using it to mean this when it affects white people.

Hm. How does this vibe with your blanket judgement about Bangladeshis?

We are all humans sharing one planet.

Gerrymandering means that the house is a skewed representation of the people. The senate is a skewed representation of the people in its intentional structure.

Further, the Trump administration is happily destroying things that are funded by the lawfully passed budgets.

If that is the test then it is plainly obvious from the data that humanities majors earn more than workers who never went to college. Where are you getting this idea that this isn't happening?

In my state the text of the constitution is taught in 8th grade civics as part of the mandated state curriculum. How is this tied to undergraduate education? You immediately expanded this to "liberal ideas" and then "western canon." Are you just talking about the constitution or are you talking about reading Locke and Shakespeare?

I don't understand what you mean by "do not produce economic benefits" then. So you say STEM majors do this and that humanities majors do not. But I truly do not understand.

I really do not think that your understanding of a modern humanities education is correct. I get my conclusion by being married to a humanities professor and friends with a lot of humanities professors. I also get this from reviewing syllabi at large universities. The idea that there is some widespread project to deliberately undermine texts that are part of the western canon because of some bias against them is just simply not based in reality.

What would be an example of a piece of evidence that you see that you find compelling here?

They need to demonstrate that it's somehow beneficial on average to economic outcomes.

Well we can demonstrate conclusively with data that people who get a humanities education have lower unemployment and earn higher wages than people without college degrees. What else is needed?

I added on top that as a liberal society, we could perhaps agree that being well versed in liberal tradition is itself valuable.

I do not agree that being well versed in liberal tradition is more valuable than being well versed in other humanities domains. The things that a humanities education teaches that are good for society are not adherence to libertarian philosophy.

Though actually if we back up a bit here, my original point was more that I doubt people are even learning [these] things

And I asked where you are getting this conclusion from. This is a pretty strong claim given that you don't seem to be engaged with humanities departments in a meaningful way.

I agree that people at Instagram and DraftKings are negatives to society, and probably they also failed to obtain their liberal arts education. Largely I think people with these things on their resume should be blacklisted by others as they proudly wear their lack of morals, and we should do more to regulate such things.

Why then can we assume that a STEM education is good for society in ways that you insist we cannot assume for a humanities education? If this education can be actively harmful to society then surely we need to apply your same concerns there.

Maybe my wording was off; by textbook my meaning was more along the lines of treatise, i.e. not casual.

Usually "monograph" is the term used for academic books in the humanities.

I don't understand how the only use of the humanities is to teach people about classical liberalism. Surely my polysci friend who worked on 21st century dictatorships and my history friend who worked on early modern communication networks are doing something valuable too? You are begging the question here and just starting from a position that only your very narrow conception of the humanities has any value at all.

I don't think that your claim that "our entire system is predicated on the idea that people are qualified and able to define their own destiny and self-govern" is actually well supported by the evidence. You are excising nuance and evidence in favor of a top down constraint on allowable ideas. You are doing the thing that University of Iowa is doing now, which is insisting on coursework that explicitly teaches things like "capitalism is the best system" rather than being driven by expert analysis and research.

I also feel that my wife, also a historian, contributes far more to our society than somebody working at Instagram finding a way to make children look at more ads or somebody working at DraftKings find a way to get problem gamblers to restart their addiction. But those people have STEM degrees so they are automatically net benefits to the world.

Also, a humanities education is not typically built from textbooks.

What does it mean to undermine it? Is your position that no matter what the rigorous application of some research method produces that you should always come to a predetermined conclusion that some particular form of western liberalism fro the 17th century is the best? Or is it possible to place these texts in complex and even critical dialog with other texts?

Can you be specific about which "values and traditions" you need to see forcefully propagated through higher education? And are we to assume that a particular form of libertarian economic project is best for "economic utility?" And should we even be optimizing for economic utility rather than human flourishing?

Hobby study? Graduates in the humanities also consistently get jobs that require degrees and go into the work force.

I am curious how much time you've spent engaged with the college humanities departments of today.

Where do you get this impression from? Faculty? Published research? My observation is that people working in the humanities have a deeper and wider reading list than at any point in prior history.

If you are complaining about students then I don't see what the problem is with not having read these particular texts. The humanities is so incredibly wide and it is good that we have widened curricula to not just focus everybody down a particular reading list of western intellectual tradition. A humanities education isn't there to just pump out classical liberals.

A polisci major who studies ancient chinese politics or 21st century dictatorships is just as legitimate as somebody who studies Locke and western liberal democracy.

I'm very sorry but you are simply not going to convince me that "wow this entire national population is just plain worse than this other population and if we let them in it'll ruin our country" is meaningfully distinct here.

What I see here is agreement with Musk's odious beliefs and a desire to avoid mean names being used to describe these beliefs.

“These populations are simply worse people undeserving of any respect or kindness. Oh and they happen to have a consistent racial component.”

George Wallace said this shit too.

I don't recall her agitating for a race war online. Maybe I missed it.

If the salutes were one weird thing it'd be one thing. But Musk spends all day online talking about how much better white society is than everything else and how foreigners are destroying society and need to be dealt with extremely harshly.

If "eliminate all IP law" is your preference then that's fine but it isn't a reason to commit crimes while we have these laws.

This is not how I want the world to be.

"Wow, our state institutions are struggling in ways X, Y, and Z. Rather than addressing these problems we will shuffle them to an unaccountable third party that will provide a necessarily worse substitute using the hot technology of the day."

Teaching children is not just about delivering facts to them. The challenge when teaching children is not "do you know the topics that you are teaching them." They challenge is in the pedagogical methods used to get them to learn.

Anyway no learning is needed for 4-9 year old education.

Man, way to decide that the entire field of child pedagogy is just trash. I wonder what all of those people were researching all these years?

There's a six month wait for me to see a pediatric gastroenterologist. Not even to get treatment. Just to see someone. Right here in the good ole USA.