The burgeoning technology of the decade has opened lots of new questions. Some of them with answers less obvious proportional to the volume of their questions. That is, some questions are obvious and many are asking them. Some are difficult and few seem to talk of them.
This is a hard question. Hard for me, at least.
And difficult things have cultural value. When I see someone do a difficult thing, I am impressed. When someone exhibits proof of having done a difficult thing, I am impressed. When I do something of note, I want my accomplishment to sit alongside its effort. People should know I tried.
On top of its value in spectacle, it seems to have some real value neurologically.
I struggled a lot to learn what I do. Because of that struggle, I know lots of niche things which come up at times during my work. I can win very specific arguments because of the hours and days I toiled over small documents in corners of the internet.
Struggle is also important for learning.
I’m really proud of authoring watlings. It’s barely important. It wasn’t difficult to make and it surely wasn’t original. Near the end of the readme you can find the essence of this paragraph.
Studies have shown that one cannot learn effectively without effort. This applies to practically every domain of knowledge. These projects should be educational, not easy.
I’m a bit embarrassed to see myself write “studies have shown” without pointing to specific studies, but it is backed up and well agreed upon. It is scientific consensus. To learn properly, it must at least be a little difficult.
But this struggle is so easily mistaken for what it isn’t. I just read a blog post which comments on a paper signed by many Fields Medalists. The author claims to not take a position, but attacks (what appears to be) the central argument. And I think he does this effectively.
The referenced article asks the labs in vague terms to stop publishing answers to unsolved problems as a marketing stunt. It does this in a way that creates an argument which is hard to defend. That it is important to slow down on science for the purposes of science itself.
You can argue quite convincingly that the advancement of AI we are living through is going to bring about destruction by virtue of at least one of its properties - the speed at which it is developed. Jobs cannot adapt in time. It will be rough.
But it is much harder to take a different position - that knowledge advancement hurts knowledge advancement. That there is value in the people struggling to find an answer.
You must have a very specific view of your field to think in such a way.
The government and many organizations fund non-engineering sciences not out of good nature, but out of practicality. Math has a way of reaching into the future and providing a tool to solve a problem that does not yet exist.
George Boole predated the boolean by over half a century.
For the mathematicians who ventured into the field for their own intellectual aggrandizement - for the privilege of being known as a great thinker - they feel their status robbed. They had run steadfast toward a prize and saw the ground turn to water beneath their feet.
It is sad. It will keep happening.
But what of the pedagogy? Surely there is value in effort. We are seeing those who take the path of easement greatly disenfranchised. If you cheat your way through classes you will land a degree without the knowledge it’s meant to represent.
We’re doubly in a difficult time for anyone taking on a new career that is enabled by these tools. For someone like me - someone who has worked in it before these tools became available - I’ve largely gained the skills surfaced by struggle. But for the newcomers?
I am reminded of a time many years ago, still before these LLMs took center stage, when I used to teach people programming over Discord. It was very enriching for me and hopefully some of the people that I taught.
One of these people I noted over the months had really advanced in their abilities. They were much younger than I, but I could remember my own acumen at their age. Their understanding had surpassed this version of me.
It was a bit jarring. I thought I was special. Or at least, I’d really struggled in a valuable way. A way in which this “undeserving” person hadn’t. Were they just much smarter than me? Was I much dumber than I thought?
Both might have been true, but neither was the largest contributor to this state. In reality and upon reflection, it was because of me. I had taught them.
I had struggled in a way they hadn’t. And from these struggles I created a line of best fit through my new understanding and rejoiced in sharing this with others. I gave these mini lectures in ways that permeated. I was the mentor I never had.
The struggle was important in many ways, but it was not wholly important. Directed struggle is what matters.
There’s a reason why children brought up with great educators become well educated. Struggle is a component, but left alone, you will only struggle. With enough will, you might even make some progress, but you’ll never make efficient use of time.
On effort, I think there is value. But it is not the whole value.