Akranazon

I added a couple items based on the comments here.

I linked this in another comment, but someone built this - https://www.historicaltechtree.com/

The repository is open source, so you can contribute if you feel inclined.

https://github.com/SeanHollen/1300-2000

I like how your project has such a long time horizon, I'm glad you're showing it.

Another project in a similar vein that might influence you is the historical tech tree. https://www.historicaltechtree.com/ It has literally thousands of technologies all mapped together. I was curious so I calculated the most "influential" technologies: https://github.com/etiennefd/hhr-tech-tree/issues/12

The only eruption I have now is Mount Tambora in 1815. I looked at a couple others but wasn't sure how many to include. The effects tend to be regional.

It always bothers me when someone says, "that's so obvious, what's the point in doing a study on it?"

> What are these results actually telling us that the average person doesn’t already know?

Nothing. It's a trivial claim, but does this imply we should not research it?

An enormous amount of effort in the hard sciences is dedicated to proving/stating:

* Claims that on their face appear trivial - like 1+1=2, or the "two points determine a line" postulate

* Things that seem obvious and hardly worth stating - like the pigeonhole principle, or laws of associativity/commutativity/distributivity

* Seemingly redundant re-phrasings of the thesis (every theorem, once it clicks)

But these sorts of mathematical rules become increasingly non-obvious when combined with each other. There is a reason the hard sciences works like this: you want to arrange knowledge hierarchically. You need to have a foundation of knowledge in order to do anything more complex.

The social sciences don't work like this, but they should. Whenever someone proves obvious things, they get told, "why are you wasting time proving that? Everyone already knows that." But psychology, with its replication crises, has a long way to go before it becomes like a hard science. You need to accumulate a hierarchy of proven foundations.

> Judge denies creating “mass surveillance program” harming all ChatGPT users

What a horribly worded title.

A judge rejected the creation of a mass surveillance program?

A judge denied that creating a mass surveillance program harms all ChatGPT users?

A judge denied that she created a mass surveillance program, and its creation (in the opinion of the columnist) harms all ChatGPT users?

The judge's act of denying resulted in the creation of a mass surveillance program?

The fact that a judge denied what she did harms all ChatGPT users?

(After reading the article, it's apparently the third one.)

The LLMs de-value the viability of homework, and assignments consisting of at-home busywork. As an alternative, teachers will have to put more emphasis on proctored exams.

I say good riddance, that's exactly how it should be. At-home busywork is a scourge on especially K-12 students. Yet, every teacher has been loading their students up with homework, because that's their idea of what a "good teacher" is supposed to do.

The faster technology overcomes this problem, the better.

Germany isn't special, (almost) all exams work like that in the US as well. I don't know why he was implying otherwise. Almost all degrees have required courses in the US as well.

You point to a true failure in incentives. And yet, the US has the highest density of renowned universities.