4 ms·

The thing you're angry at, the thing that you're upset about? It's capitalism, it's the coupling of education with jobs, it's credentialism being overturned by

The thing you're angry at, the thing that you're upset about? It's capitalism, it's the coupling of education with jobs, it's credentialism being overturned by new technology, etc. I think education is incredibly important, but I understand that I'm going to have to retrain myself a little bit. A college degree can no-longer be assumed to be a proxy for having put in the effort to deeply study something. Now what's the solution for this? I don't know, but we have made the mistake of conflating pieces of paper for expertise. And I say that as someone with 3 degrees. Thinking back to my time as a professional pilot before I medicaled out and pivoted into tech, the FAA really (for all it's problems) has a pretty good system to train and test new pilots. You have to have some hours with a certified instructor and some hours on your own. The tests to become a certified instructor are considered challenging, and many people fail. Then you take a written test, then you take a practical test. It's one on one. You and the examiner. And if you do not meet the standard, you fail. That's "ok." It's just fine to fail people who do poorly during a checkride. They go back, they get retrained, and they do it again. If you have a lot of failures during training, you'll have to answer for them in interviews later on, but often times there's a sort of holistic treatment to it. If you busted a checkride 15 years ago, and have since been fine, you'll be ok. If it's a recurring theme, you'll have a hard time finding a job (and that's the right thing, IMO). But the format of "Written, Oral Exam, and Practical Exam" is the "right" model for making sure people know wtf they are doing. How do we do that in tech? Hell if I know, maybe a proctored written exam, followed by an oral exam, then a project? But who knows.

piloto_ciego 4mo ago
replying to my own thread here, but this got me thinking, so thanks OP, but... can anyone here think of some better ways where we could decouple the education process from the work process? To me this seems like the main problem. It seems that we've decided that "get good grades == good employee" collectively. I know I'm a bad employee (which is why I work for myself now but that's another story), but I got great grades in school. I don't know, I just feel like school was rarely about actually learning / growing and was mostly about vocational work most of my time in undergrad, and I wish we could de-couple that some? But maybe I'm naive here...
- SturgeonsLaw 4mo ago
  Make education free. I'd love to study something like philosophy or art history but there's just no return on that investment. Unless you're already wealthy, it doesn't make sense to drop five or six figures on a degree unless it's likely to pay for itself. Which is even becoming less likely with STEM, as we hit a confluence of higher education costs, fewer job openings, and AI as a competitor for work.
  - piloto_ciego 4mo ago
    I totally agree! And I think you're right! Education should be free.
    - rbanffy 4mo ago
      Another thing we can add is sealing grades. If you can’t use your grades as a credential, the incentive to cheat is reduced. This won’t solve the relation between getting a job and living - that’s a job for UBI and a comprehensive social security system.
      - piloto_ciego 4mo ago
        Or, maybe we get rid of them. Like maybe the idea of having grades is kind of silly in the first place?
        eudamoniac 4mo ago
        Free education and no grades with no business purpose already exists; it's called learning about things that interest you on your own time. I don't see why the taxpayer needs to pay for someone to do this.
        piloto_ciego 4mo ago
        Then you're missing the point of higher education.
overgard 4mo ago
While I think there are a lot of problems created by capitalism right now, I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at all. These are companies that are surviving despite absolutely bleeding cash because the ultra-rich have decided that things would be so much more convenient for them if they didn't need to deal with employees anymore. This isn't "well, people are doing this because it's profitable". They're doing it DESPITE it being WILDLY unprofitable, mostly based on a weirdly religious faith that it's just going to work out because they really really want it to. Recently I saw Alex Karp (Palantir CEO) on one of those market shows (CNBC I think? Something like that) and he was upset at Dario's doom trolling. Why was he upset? Because he was worried that the populist rage towards AI was going to result in a wealth tax! And the thing is he's probably right! The thing these people fear the most, socialism, is the thing they're ironically probably going to make popular in the united states by absolutely trying to bleed the population dry.
- piloto_ciego 4mo ago
  Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. What that's going to look like I couldn't begin to imagine, but I think you might onto something about the AI industry not being all that capitalistic presently. Not an economist, but we're definitely in oligopoly territory here? Because there are only like 4-5 serious companies here. I too may be accused of having the faith that it's "all going to work out" though. I think it will. I think when things start getting weird enough a bunch of creative people will figure out logical solutions that work in the moment and we'll run with those. Barring revolution, that's kind of how things have always been. Things get weird, then we figure out how to fix it or go to blows over it. I think going to blows domestically is pretty unlikely as of yet though despite the "dooooom" narrative that a lot of people tout.
  - archagon 4mo ago
    Fascism is the more likely outcome.
KetoManx64 4mo ago
Capitalism: > an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years? Take a guess. I'll give you a hint, if you don't pay them on a yearly basis 30-50% of your paycheck, you go to prison.
- piva00 4mo ago
  If that's the case, the capitalism you allude to has never existed. Never.
  - rbanffy 4mo ago
    And that’s good, because it’d be the opposite to democracy.
- drtz 4mo ago
  > Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years? Nothing in your provided definition of capitalism precludes government control of money supply, taxation, regulation, or even government contracts. Private ownership still owns capital goods and private decision is the primary driver of investment, prices, production and distribution in most industries. This is why we have a hard time with things that are obviously good for society as a whole, like renewable energy, efficient transportation, and low-cost housing, that don't have a competitive short-term return on investment.
hatradiowigwam 4mo ago
> How do we do that in tech? Hell if I know, maybe a proctored written exam, followed by an oral exam, then a project? But who knows. Ever taken a Redhat exam - such as Red Hat Certified Engineer? That's the right model. It's a hand-on exam with arbitrary exam objectives you have to meet (by any means possible, there is more than one right way to achieve desired state). There is no internet, devices, or anything else to help you. People that pass allow you to make assumptions about them - for example... without stackoverflow, github, or the internet at all - this person can configure virtual hosts with nginx, firewall rules, host VMs, and administer network concepts(virtual switches, routing) between them. To do that without any GUI or internet available - it means you understand those concepts very well, and can implement them blindfolded. Any RHCEs want to chime in?
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago
  you have access to all of the redhat documentation but no internet. if there is a right way to do it as written in the docs then you can often find it. no internet-style indexing tho, so it's a lot of ctrl-f and hoping you pick the correct chapter -- which can be hard with a timelimit. on stuff I was strong in it was trivial, I'd already seen the docs and knew what to look for but on the few items I wasn't it was a lot of flailing.
- piloto_ciego 4mo ago
  Man, I'm not a redhat guy, but that's pretty cool? I know I couldn't do that without the docs and a lot of time, but that's a good model. A practical demo is legit. Maybe I'm a weirdo, but part of me wishes I could be like a sysadmin in a powerplant or like something similar where we used tools like that and I'd have to get really good at using them. Flying was like that, you had to know what you were doing, and aspects of tech touch that, but certainly not in the domain I'm currently in. Seriously, cool, I didn't even know this existed.

piloto_ciego 4mo ago

replying to my own thread here, but this got me thinking, so thanks OP, but... can anyone here think of some better ways where we could decouple the education process from the work process? To me this seems like the main problem. It seems that we've decided that "get good grades == good employee" collectively. I know I'm a bad employee (which is why I work for myself now but that's another story), but I got great grades in school. I don't know, I just feel like school was rarely about actually learning / growing and was mostly about vocational work most of my time in undergrad, and I wish we could de-couple that some? But maybe I'm naive here...

SturgeonsLaw 4mo ago
Make education free. I'd love to study something like philosophy or art history but there's just no return on that investment. Unless you're already wealthy, it doesn't make sense to drop five or six figures on a degree unless it's likely to pay for itself. Which is even becoming less likely with STEM, as we hit a confluence of higher education costs, fewer job openings, and AI as a competitor for work.
- piloto_ciego 4mo ago
  I totally agree! And I think you're right! Education should be free.
  - rbanffy 4mo ago
    Another thing we can add is sealing grades. If you can’t use your grades as a credential, the incentive to cheat is reduced. This won’t solve the relation between getting a job and living - that’s a job for UBI and a comprehensive social security system.
    - piloto_ciego 4mo ago
      Or, maybe we get rid of them. Like maybe the idea of having grades is kind of silly in the first place?
      - eudamoniac 4mo ago
        Free education and no grades with no business purpose already exists; it's called learning about things that interest you on your own time. I don't see why the taxpayer needs to pay for someone to do this.
        piloto_ciego 4mo ago
        Then you're missing the point of higher education.

overgard 4mo ago

While I think there are a lot of problems created by capitalism right now, I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at all. These are companies that are surviving despite absolutely bleeding cash because the ultra-rich have decided that things would be so much more convenient for them if they didn't need to deal with employees anymore. This isn't "well, people are doing this because it's profitable". They're doing it DESPITE it being WILDLY unprofitable, mostly based on a weirdly religious faith that it's just going to work out because they really really want it to. Recently I saw Alex Karp (Palantir CEO) on one of those market shows (CNBC I think? Something like that) and he was upset at Dario's doom trolling. Why was he upset? Because he was worried that the populist rage towards AI was going to result in a wealth tax! And the thing is he's probably right! The thing these people fear the most, socialism, is the thing they're ironically probably going to make popular in the united states by absolutely trying to bleed the population dry.

piloto_ciego 4mo ago
Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. What that's going to look like I couldn't begin to imagine, but I think you might onto something about the AI industry not being all that capitalistic presently. Not an economist, but we're definitely in oligopoly territory here? Because there are only like 4-5 serious companies here. I too may be accused of having the faith that it's "all going to work out" though. I think it will. I think when things start getting weird enough a bunch of creative people will figure out logical solutions that work in the moment and we'll run with those. Barring revolution, that's kind of how things have always been. Things get weird, then we figure out how to fix it or go to blows over it. I think going to blows domestically is pretty unlikely as of yet though despite the "dooooom" narrative that a lot of people tout.
- archagon 4mo ago
  Fascism is the more likely outcome.

KetoManx64 4mo ago

Capitalism: > an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years? Take a guess. I'll give you a hint, if you don't pay them on a yearly basis 30-50% of your paycheck, you go to prison.

piva00 4mo ago
If that's the case, the capitalism you allude to has never existed. Never.
- rbanffy 4mo ago
  And that’s good, because it’d be the opposite to democracy.
drtz 4mo ago
> Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years? Nothing in your provided definition of capitalism precludes government control of money supply, taxation, regulation, or even government contracts. Private ownership still owns capital goods and private decision is the primary driver of investment, prices, production and distribution in most industries. This is why we have a hard time with things that are obviously good for society as a whole, like renewable energy, efficient transportation, and low-cost housing, that don't have a competitive short-term return on investment.

hatradiowigwam 4mo ago

> How do we do that in tech? Hell if I know, maybe a proctored written exam, followed by an oral exam, then a project? But who knows. Ever taken a Redhat exam - such as Red Hat Certified Engineer? That's the right model. It's a hand-on exam with arbitrary exam objectives you have to meet (by any means possible, there is more than one right way to achieve desired state). There is no internet, devices, or anything else to help you. People that pass allow you to make assumptions about them - for example... without stackoverflow, github, or the internet at all - this person can configure virtual hosts with nginx, firewall rules, host VMs, and administer network concepts(virtual switches, routing) between them. To do that without any GUI or internet available - it means you understand those concepts very well, and can implement them blindfolded. Any RHCEs want to chime in?

red-iron-pine 4mo ago
you have access to all of the redhat documentation but no internet. if there is a right way to do it as written in the docs then you can often find it. no internet-style indexing tho, so it's a lot of ctrl-f and hoping you pick the correct chapter -- which can be hard with a timelimit. on stuff I was strong in it was trivial, I'd already seen the docs and knew what to look for but on the few items I wasn't it was a lot of flailing.
piloto_ciego 4mo ago
Man, I'm not a redhat guy, but that's pretty cool? I know I couldn't do that without the docs and a lot of time, but that's a good model. A practical demo is legit. Maybe I'm a weirdo, but part of me wishes I could be like a sysadmin in a powerplant or like something similar where we used tools like that and I'd have to get really good at using them. Flying was like that, you had to know what you were doing, and aspects of tech touch that, but certainly not in the domain I'm currently in. Seriously, cool, I didn't even know this existed.