4 ms·

If someone is blocking a child from learning more and moving faster than others because of “equity”…then some school districts need to start firing some bureauc

If someone is blocking a child from learning more and moving faster than others because of “equity”…then some school districts need to start firing some bureaucrats. Take away teaching licenses if someone is unwilling to uphold an oath to do their best with each student even if it means some students are smarter and faster than others. You cannot escape reality. You will not stunt the brightest in the name of this false god you call equity. Harrison Bergeron is a dystopia, not a training manual.

at_a_remove 3y ago
I was told that it was written as a satire of what conservatives believed, mocking what they would believe about affirmative action. If this is true, it's even more bitterly ironic.
javajosh 3y ago
>Harrison Bergeron is a dystopia, not a training manual There are people, many people, who disagree with you. In good faith. They want the best for everyone, and they see inequality as the source of much suffering, and does it not make sense to address the core of the problem? The problem with such people is that they lack the imagination and humility to understand the downsides to their proposed "solution". They choose to ignore the old addage about "the cure is worse than the disease". Ultimately the sin is hubris. They will read Harrison Bergeron and call it propaganda, hyperbole, designed to derail right-thinking, good people from pursuing utopia. What then?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dealuromanet 3y ago
  I think a good solution is universal basic income that increases in size as automation unlocks more for everyone. Then over time, everyone becomes increasingly empowered to self-actualize at their localized maximum learning velocity without needing to stunt someone brighter. Sam Altman has a correct understanding on how automation will reduce the marginal cost of doing business so much so that universal basic income becomes not only feasible but logical. People are not equal learners - some are smarter than others and some learn faster than others. Ignoring this reality does not change it. What you can do instead is allocate resources more efficiently by leaning into the disruption of AI and other efficiency gains to give people an equal gift that respects individuals - namely, a universal basic income that creates a society of people who are always learning and getting smarter at their best possible speed. The reason this won’t be fronted as often is because distributing cash directly to people is too simple a solution to hide ideologue-bureacrats-in-the-middle.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    It's a nice thought. However in practice it will require a great transfer of wealth from AI providers to the public. E.g. if MS office copilot eliminates 10M jobs, and they make some fraction of those wages in revenue, only tax laws on MS will extract that as UBI revenue. It may also be that we discover how many truly BS jobs there are such that it was all a house of cards to begin with. Not sure what we do then.
    - dealuromanet 3y ago
      This does imply some innovation is needed in how taxation happens. That is also something Sam Altman agreed with in his piece. This is an easy and simple problem to solve and all the leadership at that level has agreed on the spirit of the query as far as I've seen in their commentaries. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet, it's really good: https://moores.samaltman.com/ https://moores.samaltman.com/ I think once tens of millions of jobs are going away and everyone needs to retrain into the types of work that are still available, we'll pretty seamlessly be able to transition into a UBI model where everyone affected becomes a college student or learns a trade or craft again, with UBI making it a graceful and exciting Great Reset without anyone falling by the wayside. Because at that point, the real economic efficiency gains still exist except at a marginal cost of effectively 0. This means that with automation you can just print what you need and everyone's standard of living skyrockets. This is because commodities are plentiful on a big planet like this one and others. I think the "BS jobs" concept is missing the mark a little. Those aren't BS jobs. They're just the jobs that have been most visibly automated the fastest. They may still retain, say, 25% of the useful and necessary functions that those roles require. But because of how culture and legislation lag behind technology in rate of adoption, people still feel the need to put up with appearances of working a specific amount of time or quota in order to placate someone who only counts the beans so to speak. Tens of millions of people enjoying a Great Reset is a beautiful and achievable outcome if we do it properly. When everyone is affected, we will just work on art, music, self-improvement, learning for joy, and spending time with loved ones. And making more loved ones. This will happen.
      - 3y ago

at_a_remove 3y ago

I was told that it was written as a satire of what conservatives believed, mocking what they would believe about affirmative action. If this is true, it's even more bitterly ironic.

javajosh 3y ago

>Harrison Bergeron is a dystopia, not a training manual There are people, many people, who disagree with you. In good faith. They want the best for everyone, and they see inequality as the source of much suffering, and does it not make sense to address the core of the problem? The problem with such people is that they lack the imagination and humility to understand the downsides to their proposed "solution". They choose to ignore the old addage about "the cure is worse than the disease". Ultimately the sin is hubris. They will read Harrison Bergeron and call it propaganda, hyperbole, designed to derail right-thinking, good people from pursuing utopia. What then?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dealuromanet 3y ago
I think a good solution is universal basic income that increases in size as automation unlocks more for everyone. Then over time, everyone becomes increasingly empowered to self-actualize at their localized maximum learning velocity without needing to stunt someone brighter. Sam Altman has a correct understanding on how automation will reduce the marginal cost of doing business so much so that universal basic income becomes not only feasible but logical. People are not equal learners - some are smarter than others and some learn faster than others. Ignoring this reality does not change it. What you can do instead is allocate resources more efficiently by leaning into the disruption of AI and other efficiency gains to give people an equal gift that respects individuals - namely, a universal basic income that creates a society of people who are always learning and getting smarter at their best possible speed. The reason this won’t be fronted as often is because distributing cash directly to people is too simple a solution to hide ideologue-bureacrats-in-the-middle.
- javajosh 3y ago
  It's a nice thought. However in practice it will require a great transfer of wealth from AI providers to the public. E.g. if MS office copilot eliminates 10M jobs, and they make some fraction of those wages in revenue, only tax laws on MS will extract that as UBI revenue. It may also be that we discover how many truly BS jobs there are such that it was all a house of cards to begin with. Not sure what we do then.
  - dealuromanet 3y ago
    This does imply some innovation is needed in how taxation happens. That is also something Sam Altman agreed with in his piece. This is an easy and simple problem to solve and all the leadership at that level has agreed on the spirit of the query as far as I've seen in their commentaries. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet, it's really good: https://moores.samaltman.com/ https://moores.samaltman.com/ I think once tens of millions of jobs are going away and everyone needs to retrain into the types of work that are still available, we'll pretty seamlessly be able to transition into a UBI model where everyone affected becomes a college student or learns a trade or craft again, with UBI making it a graceful and exciting Great Reset without anyone falling by the wayside. Because at that point, the real economic efficiency gains still exist except at a marginal cost of effectively 0. This means that with automation you can just print what you need and everyone's standard of living skyrockets. This is because commodities are plentiful on a big planet like this one and others. I think the "BS jobs" concept is missing the mark a little. Those aren't BS jobs. They're just the jobs that have been most visibly automated the fastest. They may still retain, say, 25% of the useful and necessary functions that those roles require. But because of how culture and legislation lag behind technology in rate of adoption, people still feel the need to put up with appearances of working a specific amount of time or quota in order to placate someone who only counts the beans so to speak. Tens of millions of people enjoying a Great Reset is a beautiful and achievable outcome if we do it properly. When everyone is affected, we will just work on art, music, self-improvement, learning for joy, and spending time with loved ones. And making more loved ones. This will happen.
    - 3y ago