Highlighting the point in the Q&A:
If you are having fun in HS or College, you don’t need to leave. Put that extra energy that could be going towards graduating early into a side project (learn plumbing, coding, carpentry, auto maintenance, socializing, networking, youtubeing, dating, writing, or anything else that will have long term value regardless of what your career happens to be).
I’m a big fan of “take community College courses, and have them count for HS credits and towards your associates/bachelors” if your HS allows it.
Jave you tried playing with two (or 3 or 4) sides considered “open”—allowing groups to live if they touch those sides (abstracting away a larger board, to teach or practice tactical moves)?
“Baby sign” is just a dozen or so concepts like “more”, “help”, “food”, “cold” etc. The main benefit is that the baby can learn to control thier hands before they learn to control thier vocal chords.
I’ll just note here that “ability to automate the validation” is only possible when we already know the answer. Since the automated loom, computers have been a device for doing the same thing, over and over, very fast.
Let us introduce a third vocabulary word: Asset. An Asset is something that is consumed to provide Value, like cash in a mattress, food in a refrigerator, or the portion of a house or car that is depreciating as it is used.
One of the miracles of the modern age is the ability of banks to turn Assets into Wealth many times over. It’s a bit of technology built on societal trust.
In the stock market example, it isn’t double-counting, just different perspectives. Stock shares are a claim on the company, so the Google code is included in the Wealth of Google, and stock ownership is counted in the Wealth of the individual owners, but it’s like saying “there are 20 legs in my dining room, and there are 4 legs on the table”—it’s an error of logic to add the 20 to the 4.
I distinguish between Wealth and Value as concepts. Lots of things provide Value (a croissant, a free library app, refactoring code, project management), but Wealth is specifically things that provide ongoing value when used, without being used up. For example, a code base provides ongoing value to its owners, and a refactoring code base provides more ongoing value, so that increases Wealth. Living near a beach or other nice place is a form of Wealth. Money in the bank, or in stocks, that is generating enough income to outpace inflation is Wealth. Strong relationships is Wealth. Useful knowledge is Wealth.
In summary, Wealth is anything that generates (not “is convered to”) Value over time.
It turns out publishing bias is one heck of a drug. Every success of automation was touted, and every failure quietly tucked away, until one day the successes started getting smaller and less significant. We still see improvements around the edges of capability, but the big rocks, like making choices between domains in pursuit of abstract goals, remain elusive.
Having read the linked piece, I think it may be more a case of common cause then learning a new skill. People who are good at deciphering one complex system are going to be good at deciphering other complex systems. And people with experience doing that are going to be better than those without. “Seeing the meta” is just a way to ID people who have learned how to learn systems.
Depending on what level of competition and scope you are looking for, here are some suggestions:
For a tiny group (dozens of players), see https://forums.sirlingames.com/
For a larger (thousands), but still moderately easy to learn, https://storybookbrawl.com/
For actual global competition (millions, good luck): https://magic.wizards.com/en/mtgarena or https://hearthstone.blizzard.com/en-us
It’s not just a low-IQ human, though. I know some low IQ people and their primary deficiency is the ability to apply information to new situations. Where “new situation” might just be the same situation as before, but on a different day, or with a slightly different setup (eg task requires A, B1, B2, and C—usually all 4 things need to be done, but sometimes B1 is already done and you just need to do A, B2, and C—medium or high would notice and just do the 3 things, medium might also just do B1 anyway. Low IQ folx tend to do A, and then not know what to do next because it doesn’t match the pattern.)
The one test I ran with GPTchat was asking three questions (with a prompt that you are giving instructions to a silly dad who is going to do exactly what you say, but mis-interpret things if they aren’t specific):
Explain how to make a Peanut Butter Sandwitch (gave a good result to this common choice)
Explain how to add 237 and 465 (word salad with errors every time it attempted)
Explain how to start a load of laundry (was completely unable to give specific steps—it only had general platitudes like “place the sorted laundry into the washing machine.” No-where did it specify to only place one sort of sorted laundry in at a time, nor did it ever include “open the washing machine” on the list.
You can also just speed-walk: quickly take full size strides, but always keep at least one foot on the ground—this keeps your torso at the same elevation for the whole journey, and eliminates the bouncing (and, added bonus, it doesn’t look like you’re running)
You could also say “no” if:
You don’t have “goals in life”
Your parents are dead
You don’t care what your parents (or anyone else) thinks (a fairly common feeling among Autism Spectrum folx)
You are focused on one or two important things (goal: get a promotion / get an A in this class / etc.), and nebulous “make my parents proud” things aren’t as important.
You interpret the question as referring to both or all your parents, but one or more of the previously mentioned reasons apply to some of your parents, so while you might want to make “my mom” proud, that doesn’t apply to “my dad” or “my stepmom” and therefore you don’t consider “my parents” a unified entity.
So, basically this comic:
Also what that other user said: the opportunity cost is only the next best thing you could have done, not all the alternatives.
1:10 management ratio is a very bad assumption as things get large. First level supervisors in Retail or Manufacturing often have 30-100 direct reports, regardless of how many levels of management exist above them (with 2-6 direct reports each).
Also, modern supply chains mean that medium to big companies often have entire additional companies “reporting into” the management structure.
There are some mainstream-ish ideas out there like Servant Leadership or Agile that try to work around this problem by dis-entangling power and prestige. If the lower level managers are organizationally “in charge” of what actually gets done (leaving the higher levels just in charge of who to hire/fire), that breaks up some of the feedback.
Another thing to do is ensure that Management is not the only (and hopefully not even the best) way to gain prestige in the company. Include the top widget makers in the high level corporate meetings. They might not care about strategic direction, but if the CEO’s golf foursome includes the senior production employees in the rotation alongside upper management (and the compensation packages are similar between them), that can help.
The physical world is also acting continuously based on inputs it receives from people, and we don’t say “The Earth” is an intelligence.
I think the biggest piece of an actual GI that is missing from text extenders is agency
Responding to prompts and answering questions is one thing, but deciding what to do/write about next isn’t even a theoretical part of thier functionality.
See also https://www.sirlin.net/articles/designing-yomi for more on this phenomena
So, in summary, current gen AI continues to be better at reaching small goals (win this game, wriite a paragraph) than the average human attempting those goals, but still lacks the ability to switch between disparate activities, and doesn’t reach the level of a human expert once the playing field gets more complicated than Go or heads-up Poker?
If you are buying “a place to live” that can get complicated.
But buying “a building to rent out” isn’t any more fraught than buying a car (or a boat, which is a more expensive vehicle; or a private jet for an even bigger “thing”).