My biggest question about the EO was whether the administration was focused on maintaining tech supremacy by teaching students how to build better models or on developing a workforce/society that uses AI in creative/expansive ways across the board. Some of the language indicates they are interested in both, but your point that the Chair is the Secretary of Science and Technology and not Education is telling. It would seem to imply they care more about having the best builders rather than the best users, but of course, only time will tell.
The language suggests that AI will augment the students of the future to prepare them for careers, conveniently ignoring that AI agents and AI tools are already eliminating jobs that once relied upon costly talent (e.g., real estate contract attorneys, social media marketing, online technical support). This seems like the lightly edited output of an early GPT given the prompt: " Spit out some boilerplate bullshit about how the federal government will promote AI at all levels as a replacement for college educated professionals and teachers. Don't mention job loss, unions, or DEI."
In my experience, by the time any government agency has decided what to do with any technology and written their reports, rules and regulations, by which time the technology has moved on.
We cannot help but worry about you given the pace you keep. I'd rather have you avoid crashing and take care of yourself than brush it off by telling me I'm kind.
My biggest question about the EO was whether the administration was focused on maintaining tech supremacy by teaching students how to build better models or on developing a workforce/society that uses AI in creative/expansive ways across the board. Some of the language indicates they are interested in both, but your point that the Chair is the Secretary of Science and Technology and not Education is telling. It would seem to imply they care more about having the best builders rather than the best users, but of course, only time will tell.
Thanks for this analysis!
I *think* both, but this administration seems much more interested in business than in teaching. Ditto Project 2025.
The language suggests that AI will augment the students of the future to prepare them for careers, conveniently ignoring that AI agents and AI tools are already eliminating jobs that once relied upon costly talent (e.g., real estate contract attorneys, social media marketing, online technical support). This seems like the lightly edited output of an early GPT given the prompt: " Spit out some boilerplate bullshit about how the federal government will promote AI at all levels as a replacement for college educated professionals and teachers. Don't mention job loss, unions, or DEI."
Agreed, it doesn't recognize job destruction.
In my experience, by the time any government agency has decided what to do with any technology and written their reports, rules and regulations, by which time the technology has moved on.
Let the individual teachers make the decisions.
True, governments do lag. And generative AI is racing ahead quickly.
The thing is, individual teachers may need institutional support for their decisions.
It is plain to see that Trump sees little need for higher education.
Hope you feel better soon. Even with the flu, you are still one of the smartest people in the room.
Thank you very much, kind person!
We cannot help but worry about you given the pace you keep. I'd rather have you avoid crashing and take care of yourself than brush it off by telling me I'm kind.
Not a brush off at all, Vanessa. I do think you're kind. I'm just making calculations about what I can do, and how to support my family.
Hopefully things will improve when I turn in this manuscript.