You could also have it create a viewer competition selection; show two images without attribution and let the use select which one. Could be cool to see the wisdom of the crowds; could also have price ranges to have subcategories. I bet Astra could do that in a half hour.
Loving the pelican silliness. My ChatGPT is over the moon about it. Gonna miss it when it really is done. Though maybe a pelican riding a bike game could become the benchmark in a year.
How would you distinguish corporation influencing consumers from corporations following consumers? One thing would be to see if there are items that are heavily advertised by corporations but that they do not succeed. You can also take items that everyone knows about, no one wants, and then launch a propaganda campaign and see what happens. Different propaganda works in different ways so one would need to try varieties. I imagine a randomly controlled trial of having various ubiquitous goods that are not heavily advertised nor heavily purchased and then randomly assigning different advertising strategies (including none). Do that in various regions, countries, ethnicities, etc, and then see what can be seen.
My guess is that advertising raises desire by a few percent in most cases. There would be some instances of a run away craze, probably with a massive rise followed by a collapse, but that most products would largely be unaffected. I assume some advertising strategies would backfire and reduce demand.
For me, I feel like most of the time it is been exposed to the existence of an item and my ability to see how it could be useful. I don't think random advertisements I come across impact me that much since most of the advertisements I see don't seem to correspond to anything I want or do or spend money on.
Humans use their imagination to figure out what choice of action leads to a future of less uncomfortability. Often times, these are choices between short term future and long term future. Advertising is a way of helping shape that argument as to what choice is to be taken, but the underlying drive is already there.
You could also look for cases where propaganda is used against consumerism and see how impactful that tends to be.
When I asked ChatGPT, it gave me a side profile, first as a PNG which was good and then I asked again for an SVG and it obliged, doing a version of what it produced but it was bad.
As a mathematics person, I find this at odds with my views. I know the current regime rewards new mathematical discoveries for professional advancement, but that is a job thing, one which can be altered by the powers that be. To me investigating mathematics is fun whether it is new to the world or not. The complaint is similar to lamenting how everywhere has already been visited and there is nothing to be done other than have your own personal experience of a place. I saw the redwoods recently for the first time and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience despite not being the first person to see them. Mathematical discovery is much the same except now we have tools that help us dramatically with the tedious stuff, the researching what others know. In the old days, I would spend a long time figuring something out and only at the end could I figure out where to find it in the literature. Very frustrating. Now, we have machines to guide us to many things and understandings and clarifications. They are guides that help us get to where we want to be and then let us wander as we desire. This is incredible. I am currently using them to develop the computational tools I want to use to explore stuff.
As for squeezing in the time to do mathematics if the paying jobs disappear, there is a good chance we will have a world of plenty very shortly. I have a belief that the Austrian economists are right that there will always be plenty for humans to do and get rewarded for, but I also think that the costs of living will be so low that someone who wants to do mathematics will have plenty of time to do so. I hope this person holds the faith long enough and tries to see how the AI's can help accelerate one's own understanding. I am no fan of AIs generating a bunch of papers that no one reads or cares about, but I could say the same about the immense number of papers made by humans as well. If anything, the AIs make all of that immense knowledge more valuable as it is now knowable and accessible through these tools. There is also the fact that the mathematics job market has been oversaturated for at least 20 years. What our new tools allow is for people to be able to do mathematics outside of having access to a research library and top mathematics department.
Yes, we'll have free health care, boomers will rent their apartments for $100, everyone will have UBI and a Tesla with a warp drive that travels to the terraformed Mars.
You never hear this story? It's all everyone is talking about in the media it seems, with "techno fascism" apparently and killer robots in bunkers and K shaped economy. In fact I almost never see the utopic take, everything is just dystopic.
Also it is just plain transparent projection. I will point out only one ideology outright killed entire classes of people once they were considered 'no longer useful' and that wasn't capitalism, it was communism. And this "capitalists will kill you all if you don't rise up!" propaganda is crusty and old, back since the emergence of computers and the discipline of cybernetics in the classical sense of the word.
> As for squeezing in the time to do mathematics if the paying jobs disappear, there is a good chance we will have a world of plenty very shortly.
That's laughable. We will NEVER have a world of plenty. If there is a lot more plenty, there will be a lot more people who will want a disproportionate share of it.
What are your thoughts about children in a Sudbury School model? These are democratic schools where children can do what they like in the day. Mostly they choose to play with other kids, games of imagination, though also doing screen time. One of the basic principles is that children figure out what they want to do and the learning comes along with it; the model views adults wanting children to learn something specific as generally counterproductive though having resources available is okay if it is not coupled with any expectations.
Are your devices likely something that they would have fun with and choose to engage with or is it likely to be ignored unless adults use some kind of persuasion to have them use it? Is it cool with a child using it for a bit and then not using it for a few months and then wandering back to it? How far up into math does it go compared to what an a randomly sampled adult could actually do mathwise? Also for reading, are you using phonics or whole word sighting? For math, to what extent is it screen manipulatives versus manipulations of digits? Also, do you have provision for an older child to start learning this stuff so the basics need not be at a 4 year old presentation level, but the concepts still need to be covered?
In Sudbury schools, the typical age of self-taught reading is 7-9 though it can range from 4 to 12. Useful arithmetic usually seems to happen much earlier than reading though reading tends to get completed by the children on their own while arithmetic does not advance further than the needs of money exchange without special effort. In the long run, Sudbury students have no problem with college level material, including mathematics, but it could be nice to have something that eases the white knuckling if it does not undermine the child's self-directedness.
Hi! I'm Elizabeth (one of the co-founders of Ello). This is an interesting question. I actually think there is more overlap than people might assume, but it's a bit more because adaptability to various approaches to learning is part of the point. While I'm not deeply familiar with the Sudbury School model, I think there are various approaches to teaching kids that are successful because different approaches serve different types of kids and learners. I can see why this approach would be successful for a certain profile of student for whom it's the right fit.
We start from the belief that children are naturally curious. Our job is to build something engaging enough that a child wants to interact with it because it is interesting and rewarding. If a child in a Sudbury environment never chose to use it, I would see that as useful feedback for us, not a problem with the child. There are opportunities for kids to explore and incorporate their interests within our app.
I also think it is completely fine if a child uses it for a while, disappears for months, and comes back. Learning is rarely linear, and technology should be able to pick up wherever the child is.
On reading, we’re firmly grounded in the science of reading, so we teach through explicit phonics rather than whole-word memorization because that is best practice.
On math, we’re much more interested in helping children build intuition and conceptual understanding than simply getting answers. AI gives us the flexibility to use conversation, visual models, stories, or symbolic math, depending on what helps a particular child understand.
One thing AI is uniquely good at is meeting learners where they are. A 10 year old who is learning to read should not have to work through material that feels like it was made for preschoolers. The underlying concepts can stay the same while the language, topics, and presentation become age appropriate.
I don’t think there is one educational model that works for every child. What excites me is that AI makes it much more feasible to adapt to individual learners instead of expecting every learner to adapt to the same experience.
>> children figure out what they want to do and the learning comes along with it; the model views adults wanting children to learn something specific as generally counterproductive
> One thing AI is uniquely good at is meeting learners where they are
What if the AI wanted children to learn something specific? Able to patiently await an opportune moment. Able to blend it invisibly into other material. Able to subtly check and correct understanding.
Long term, one possibility is AI enabling a massive implicit curriculum. "[A]dults wanting children to learn" about say street crossing might be counterproductive... but funny how, at opportune times, some random stories just happen to include crossing a street, and do formative assessment, and happen to, quietly and eventually, cover and reinforce the associated learning objectives.
Take How the Piloses Evolved Skinny Noses, a children's picture book inoculation against natural selection misconceptions. It could merely be a book on a shelf. Or the AI might introduce or provide the book at an opportune moment. Or the book's approach itself might be dissolved and blended into other content.
So some story is explicitly about Fido going for a walk. But implicitly, it covers some aspect of safely crossing a street, and street lights as a communication device, and of concrete crack propagation, and tick precautions, and natural selection, and ...
Science is a richly interwoven tapestry of stories... but we basically never teach it like that. Even if such material was gathered, which pre-AI was absurdly implausibly demanding of domain expertise, it would largely be beyond the capability of an individual tutor to compellingly and adaptively deliver. But with AI?
Thanks for replying. Glad to hear you use phonics. It sounds like it could have a lot of potential and I intend to pass it along to our community. If you would like to possibly explore its use in a Sudbury community, you can send an email to my gmail account which is the same username as listed here.
Think about what every adult absolutely needs to know: how to be an effective member of society, how to interact with people, how to self-regulate, and generally being a person other people want to be around and work with. That is what a Sudbury school supports learning while conventional school hinders it, offering an authoritarian-based lifestyle instead.
Most people going through conventional school don't get the freedom to learn to be themselves in a community until their 20s, not mastering it until often their early 30s. As for academics, Sudbury students have repeatedly demonstrated having no problem quickly learning whatever it is they want or need to learn as an adult. Many Sudbury students go to college, getting A's even in their first semester, making good bonds not only with other students but also faculty and administrators. They help form communities wherever they go. They are engaged in classes in a way that their peers are not. They are coming to academic learning fresh and eager not weighed down by 14,000 hours of conventional school tedium. Those who do not go to college often advance very quickly in whatever work they end up doing as person skills are the key to being successful.
The results speak for themselves. You can read about it in Peter Gray's book Free to Learn and other works by him.
Also keep in mind that teaching, which is what conventional school focuses on, is not the same as learning.
I suspect there are massive selection effects the are skewing the results here. I can imagine this being quite effective for intelligent, curious, and self-motivated kids and a complete and utter disaster for the average child.
He said the crawlers were costing him money. Maybe stealing could be viewed as avoiding the ads? Don't know what license he had on his publicly available content, but if his site was not being crawled heavily, then it sounds like he might not have taken it all down. I wonder about hosting it on Github / GH-pages or something. Maybe at some volume it becomes a problem or maybe they disallow ads which he wants to profit from?
I used to follow him years ago and liked his content but I drifted away long before AI.
I wonder given his deep expertise how much he could get into teaching how to spot and fix bad AI JS code.
The fortune article is more informative and paints a long standing problem. A lot of the issue is that the region has competing government controls being spread across California for rates, Nevada for power, and feds for doing whatever they do. This is the energy company's side of it:
>Katie Jo Collier, a spokesperson for the utility, said the transition was rooted in a longtime understanding with Liberty “well before data center load growth was a consideration,” calling it “a planned transition for many years, not a reaction to recent developments.” NV Energy sold its California electric assets to Liberty in 2009 and agreed to keep supplying power temporarily. That arrangement was extended in 2015, again in 2020, and once more in late 2025, and each time because Liberty had not yet secured an independent supply, a timeline corroborated by regulatory documents reviewed by Fortune.
>But independent experts have questioned whether NV Energy’s own demand projections are reliable. In testimony filed with Nevada regulators in Oct. 2024, energy economist Rose Anderson of Synapse Energy Economics warned that NV Energy’s major-project load forecast is ‘highly uncertain’ and that existing customers could end up paying for infrastructure built to serve industrial demand that never materializes.
>In statement to Fortune, NV Energy reiterated its spokesperson’s statement about the transition having been planned for years. “It is important to note that the NV Energy’s wholesale agreement with Liberty Utilities was always intended to be temporary and transitional, with a clear timeline and multiple extensions over the years to support Liberty’s long-term planning efforts to secure its own access to energy supply. To ensure reliable ongoing service to Lake Tahoe customers, NV Energy agreed in 2025 to continue providing energy service to Liberty’s customers until their transmission access is available and/or until Greenlink is online.”
>“NV Energy has provided reliable service to Liberty’s customers in the Lake Tahoe Basin for years and fully intends to continue that commitment while Liberty secures its own transmission access and energy to supply those customers,” the utility added. “NV Energy has taken proactive steps to ensure there is no service disruption to Liberty customers, now or in the future.”
>Rates were already climbing
>The supply crisis arrives on top of an existing affordability fight. In its 2025 general rate case, Liberty originally sought a 19.1% revenue increase—about $37.51 more per month for the average residential customer, according to CPUC filings. The CPUC approved a smaller increase: 11.4%, with a 9.75% return on equity rather than Liberty’s requested 11%.
Loving the pelican silliness. My ChatGPT is over the moon about it. Gonna miss it when it really is done. Though maybe a pelican riding a bike game could become the benchmark in a year.
reply