Sean. go here
Sade Olutola
KIROKAZE
sheepfilms
No title available

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
art blog(derogatory)

Kiana Khansmith
d e v o n
No title available
No title available

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

★

#extradirty
dirt enthusiast
cherry valley forever
Sweet Seals For You, Always
trying on a metaphor
i don't do bad sauce passes

roma★

No title available

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Mexico
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from Netherlands

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@obphious
Sean. go here
Intelligent tutors, in their current form, should not replace teachers. They should serve as a tool. Furthermore, they should have an honest interface; from Jaron Lanier in the discussion:
Absolutely every function that can be provided by an AI interface can be provided by an honest interface better. Let's make a "Google" instead of an "Ask Jeeves." Let's make something with a user interface that's honest about what it can do and leave fantasies of future AI to the movie makers.
Nobody thinks clearly, no matter what they pretend. Thinking’s a dizzy business, a matter of catching as many of those foggy glimpses as you can and fitting them together the best you can. That’s why people hang on so tight to their beliefs and opinions; because, compared to the haphazard way in which they’re arrived at, even the goofiest opinion seems wonderfully clear, sane and self-evident. And if you let it get away from you, then you’ve got to dive back into that foggy muddle to wrangle yourself out another to take its place.
Dashiell Hammett
So most people pre-emptively lower their expectations. For example, if you asked random people on the street if they'd like to be able to draw like Leonardo, you'd find most would say something like "Oh, I can't draw." This is more a statement of intention than fact; it means, I'm not going to try. Because the fact is, if you took a random person off the street and somehow got them to work as hard as they possibly could at drawing for the next twenty years, they'd get surprisingly far. But it would require a great moral effort; it would mean staring failure in the eye every day for years. And so to protect themselves people say "I can't."
Constraints give your life shape. Remove them and most people have no idea what to do: look at what happens to those who win lotteries or inherit money.
Whichever route you take, expect a struggle. Finding work you love is very difficult. Most people fail. Even if you succeed, it's rare to be free to work on what you want till your thirties or forties. But if you have the destination in sight you'll be more likely to arrive at it. If you know you can love work, you're in the home stretch, and if you know what work you love, you're practically there.
Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work. If you wait around for the clouds to part and a bolt of lightning to strike you in the brain, you are not going to make an awful lot of work. All the best ideas come out of the process; they come out of the work itself.
Chuck Close
Microsoft Researchs Project Tuva explores core scientific concepts and theories through presenting timeless videos with transcripts, relevant links and references, and interactive extras.
Some key quotes:
Once we see media for thought as something that can be consciously designed, the natural question is: how far can we go?
Fascinating, well-written article about the misaligned reward system in academia.
Deirdre McCloskey's Law of Academic Prestige: "the more useful the field, the lower its prestige".
A bit cliche at times but presented in a various honest and conscious manner. Here's some quote highlights:
When discussing Shannon's ability to continue on difficult problems:
That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think.
When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error.
So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren't always the best ones for you.
What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this.
...
Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly.
...
If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?
...
It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems.
...
Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, ``The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame.
...
Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist.
...
I bragged about something so I'd have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, ``Oh yes, I'll get the answer for you Tuesday,'' not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday.
Kieran Egant argues that it's in really, fully, deeply understanding something, anything, that we generate a true appreciation of knowledge itself.
""" A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.""" -Alexander Pope
He proposes a concrete method for exposing children to deep, complete knowledge: every child is randomly assigned a single topic during their early school years - they continually study this topic throughout their entire educations (e.g. apples, mid-evil footwear, leaves, swordfish). They compile a vast portfolio on this randomly chosen topic. He attempts to negate some common criticisms (I thought: won't children become bored).
?Are there any studies investigating this idea?