3 ms·

I think it is the exact opposite of that. There is some version that can be done with current technology, but the challenges for that version are fundamentally

I think it is the exact opposite of that. There is some version that can be done with current technology, but the challenges for that version are fundamentally much much more basic than what is discussed here: the article is basically jumping ahead imagining we had 90% of the technology of the primer solved and what problems you might face in that hypothetical world where the remaining constraints being "people don't talk to it enough, otherwise it would work" The article mentions several times the concerns about getting enough user specific data and that it can't be easily bootstrapped by a smaller company that isn't the "big 5" because others don't have enough data. Except the big 5 can't solve related and easier problems yet with the data they have and a ton of engineering effort invested. The article ponders whether a primer for the hardest topics (educated adults) could have enough usage while we can't even do "make something that usefully, intelligently adapts to teach users even trivial topics or targeting a single grade of very young children", or "something that can hold a conversation better than a toddler".

inimino 9y ago
I think the author knows and is assuming a lot of what you're pointing out. The technology for the Primer as such isn't there and won't be until we have general AI. However, we could build something today with current tech, like a Kindle that teaches you to read, or teaches you calculus, and it wouldn't be hard to make a compelling product. There are many possible starting points and the technology isn't really the problem if the goal is just to make a start. The real problem is much deeper and the key point is that the Primer was subversive. How do you organize a consumer product company around a subversive product? You don't. So how do you fund such a project? These are much bigger than the technical problems. There's a reason why Stephenson had the Primer commissioned by an infinitely rich eccentric and built by a rebel engineer. What I suspect the author is hinting at by talking about data isn't that the data is hard to get, it is that for any company in our society with access to that level of resources to start making machines to mold young minds would be a pretty short road to a pretty boring dystopia.

inimino 9y ago

I think the author knows and is assuming a lot of what you're pointing out. The technology for the Primer as such isn't there and won't be until we have general AI. However, we could build something today with current tech, like a Kindle that teaches you to read, or teaches you calculus, and it wouldn't be hard to make a compelling product. There are many possible starting points and the technology isn't really the problem if the goal is just to make a start. The real problem is much deeper and the key point is that the Primer was subversive. How do you organize a consumer product company around a subversive product? You don't. So how do you fund such a project? These are much bigger than the technical problems. There's a reason why Stephenson had the Primer commissioned by an infinitely rich eccentric and built by a rebel engineer. What I suspect the author is hinting at by talking about data isn't that the data is hard to get, it is that for any company in our society with access to that level of resources to start making machines to mold young minds would be a pretty short road to a pretty boring dystopia.