I have a Vision Pro since launch and loved it, and it has a much more traditional, much wider FOV. However, when you do watch movies on it, it looks incredible but usually only a fraction of that full FOV is utilized -- you do see the theater, or environment, etc. My one wondering is if they'll somehow really deliver the experience of a virtual screen, non-occlusion of the real world, and make it so that the huge screen on the wall several feet away from you can be fully rendered on only this 70 degree FOV. To be sure this is a killer for this as an all-encompassing VR device, but I hope that maybe we'll be shown that it might just be good enough for more of a MR use. Or maybe its just cause I'm at least excited someone is trying and bringing products in this space and so I want to cheer this on
Yes, but as a K-12 administrator, I sadly have to tell you this is just about one of the more substantive things I have seen.
Yes, it's 95% fluff, but there is a real admission here that the guidance really ought to accept that there will be a whole host of tasks/assignments that kids engage in where the assumption SHOULD be that they basically will leverage AI, and that for their own benefit, resources should be set aside to promote experiences -- both in the context of assessments but also even in the social sphere -- there the influence of AI will be very purposefully prevented.
That is an actual stake in the ground, I think (as far as it goes in context like this). I think I would have been hard-pressed to have predicted that there would be such a revolutionary technology where the explicit ask of MIT faculty would be to prevent its influence in the school.
It will only get harder. From the trenches in tech it’s hard enough to get people who should know better to put in the work to understand the ai output.
For education I can’t imagine. You might have to resort to actual discussion in classrooms instead of homework, with the accompanying need for both more educators and higher quality therein. Which isn’t going to be easy when education is fully under regulatory capture (at least for K-12 in the USA)
K-12 means the public school system in USA & canada. It consists of kindergarten, elementary , middle and high schools, encompassing 12 grades/classes, each taking one year to complete.
Maybe it just requires approaching the problem differently. What about the vulcan study pod things? Have the discussion with the AI itself. Have the AI regularly assess understanding.
So this is an alternative that I actually don't object to at all, but you still need to create mechanisms where you then get at the quality of the mental models formed without the assistance of AI. My (very unpopular) hot take is that some of this will actually usher in a new era of "standardized test"-like things; we will be far more permissive about how/in what ways students/professionals acquire knowledge, and the real task will now shift from that to guaranteeing that there is some competency that was reached with the assurance that it isn't masked by an outside influence.
If you basically assume that everyone can and will cheat at all times, then you can let yourself be far more agnostic about it AS LONG as you are confident in some ability to measure the person's skill without the tools.
The interesting thing is that ai actually helps me learn more effectively than ever before. Each session can become a personalized little seminar that dynamically tests me as it presents ideas and concepts and I attempt to apply and extend them.
I think we need to move past recall as the test itself, and tasks as the gate we judge academic achievement by. These were only ever an approximate measure, which is why we still have things like thesis defenses.
But imagine the final being an interview with an agent that is designed to probe your mastery? From my experience so far it seems we could measure much more directly the educational outcome and also accelerate the learning at the same time. But this assumes those involved want to learn, which widespread cheating suggests is not the case. Maybe the real answer is that we shouldn’t attempt to force curiosity but instead cultivate it where we find it, allowing those who reject it to be redirected until they find something engaging.
I really do worry for our younger students - and I don't envy your job at all.
It seems as if all of teaching and student evaluation needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with AI as a default assumption.
Local high schools have added in class timed, hand written, essays for classes like AP US History.
I particularly like Chicago Law School's policy on AI.
E.g. Law students writing a "Substantial Research Paper" will have to defend it orally: "We will be adding one additional requirement, which is that all students will be required to engage in an oral discussion of their SRP with their supervising professor, in an in-person setting. This discussion will occur after a complete draft (or final version) of the paper has been submitted to the professor. The discussion could take place one-on-one, or as a class presentation in the style of an academic workshop. Either way, the oral exchange will involve the student answering questions that probe the reasoning of the paper and the implications of its arguments."
As a school administrator, this is pretty disappointing.
I've included slides showing a graphic of someone in a slot machine next to a screenshot of Instagram, and would do an activity where the children themselves drew connections of what they saw/knew. It was not difficult, and they hit it out of the park every time.
The fact that the possible damages sought was over 200 billion, and this settlement clocks in at less than ten percent of that value plus "concessions" that really at this point are just tablestakes for them product itself to just be viable given the parent backlash against these things, is incredibly disappointing. They have cost people on the periphery of this A LOT more, and from a merely business proposition, the wanton disregard for safety in this case proved to be a smart business move. The lawsuit should have had a chilling effect on anyone trying to do anything similar lately, but that will not be the case.
If anything this will embolden others to continue to pursue strategies of “do harm and pay the fine.” It is simply a cost for these sociopaths doing business, and our government has explicitly endorsed that status quo for decades.
Am I the only one who couldn't tell whether this was real or not for a good long while? I legitimately wondered whether the BBC site might have been hacked. I just simply cannot find a way to make sense of just about anything in the news story; I had just assumed it would go under and that's that. Why would someone who has that kind of money to invest put it into this pivot as opposed to a completely fresh, new effort? What's the efficiency I'm not seeing?
Me too. It had me genuinely wondering if the Brits have their own version of April Fools in the middle of the month.
Forget the AI -- I'm just as shocked to see that shares went from $500+ in 2021 to below $3 this year. That's insane. I had to verify it's actually real.
I thought this was just a normal shoe company that had invented a cool look with some good branding.
> I'm just as shocked to see that shares went from $500+ in 2021 to below $3 this year. That's insane. I had to verify it's actually real.
Well, sort of. They did a 20 for 1 reverse split in 2024, and possibly that wasn’t the only reverse split. That means the stock peaked at $25 (pre reverse split) and dipped below $0.25 (if the reverse split didn’t happen) so they did a reverse split to stay listed on the NYSE, as you need $1/share minimum price or something like that.
Number of shares and share price are completely arbitrary, FWIW.
Yes, that's how you get a $500 historic price. It wasn't at 500 at the time, but due to the reverse split the current price is correct relative to a $500 historic price.
For anyone who liked this, I highly suggest you take a look at the CuriousMarc youtube channel, where he chronicles lots of efforts to preserve and understand several parts of the Apollo AGC, with a team of really technically competent and passionate collaborators.
One of the more interesting things they have been working on, is a potential re-interpretation of the infamous 1202 alarm. It is, as of current writing, popularly described as something related to nonsensical readings of a sensor which could (and were) safely ignored in the actual moon landing. However, if I remember correctly, some of their investigation revealed that actually there were many conditions which would cause that error to have been extremely critical and would've likely doomed the astronauts. It is super fascinating.
And that's why it's harder (or easier?) to make the same landing again -- we taking way less chances. Today we know of way more failure modes than back then.
They sent people up in a tin can with the bare minimum computational power to manage navigation and control sequencing. It was barely safer than taking a barrel over Niagara Falls. We do have much more capable and reliable technology.
Buzz Aldrin (?) was quoted as recalling holding a pencil inside the capsule as they were out in space and thinking "that wall isn't very thick or strong, I could probably jam a pencil through it pretty easily..."
Death being a layer of aluminum away changes your mind.
It's a miracle nobody died in flight during the program. Exploding oxygen tank, rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch, getting hit by lightning on top of a flying skyscraper full of kerosene and liquid oxygen....
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died on the Apollo program. I feel it's not polite to ignore that fact even if you add an 'in flight' qualifier.
And it's even more interesting in the fact that our rocket program started with the former rocket scientists from Nazi Germany who were brought over at the end of WW2 to work in the American rocket/missile program.
Starting from the first test pilots, a lot of people died for us to get to the point to launch that flight. So while no one died on the flight, lots of people died just getting us there. If I recall, in The Right Stuff, it's mentioned that those early test pilots had something like a 25% mortality rate.
The early jet age was pretty nuts. Check the Wikipedia page for a random fighter from the era and you'll see figures like, 1,300 built, 50 lost in combat, 1,100 lost in accidents. And that's operational aircraft. Test pilots were in even more danger.
Some were pretty bad, but none were nearly that bad. The B-58 Hustler lost 22% of its airframes, the F7U Cutlass 25%, the F-104 Starfighter in German service lost 33%. And those were outliers.
You're right, those numbers are from the F-8 but include non-total-loss accidents.
I don't think the numbers you quoted are outliers, though. The F-100 lost ~900 out of 2,300. The F-106 lost ~120/342. That's a pretty big list of planes with a 1/5-1/3 loss rate.
Think about the "failure mode" of the aircraft that won World War II, the Supermarine Spitfire.
There was a fuel tank mounted between the engine and cockpit so if it took enough of a hit to puncture right through (not hard, in practice) the failure mode was that the cockpit was now full of a 350mph jet of burning petrol.
"popularly described" and how it's currently understood are two different things. Because it's hard to explain to lay people, it's popularly described in a number of simplified ways, but it's well understood.
Since we are on HN, I think it could be explained there (before it's all consumed by AI slop):
For complex reasons, available CPU time during landing was lower than expected (it was stolen by radar pointing peripheral). This caused regularly scheduled job to spawn before previous instance finished. As such, this caused two effects: job instances were suspended before finishing by new instances in the middle of the routine, and that pilling up of the old instances eventually exhausted resources and caused kernel to panic and reboot. Rebooting during landing sounds scary, but that actually was fine: such critical tasks were specifically designed to automatically restart from previously saved checkpoint data in the memory.
What was more dangerous, was the suspended tasks before restarts occured. First, it meant routine wasn't executing to the end, which in actual flight caused blanked displays (as updating the display was the last thing routine was doing). Any more CPU time stolen, and it could be interrupted even earlier, eg. before it sends the engine commands.
Another issue is that in case of fluctuating load, new instances could actually begin running to the end, and then previously suspended job instance could be resumed, potentially sending the stale data to the displays and engine.
And finally, while each job instance had it own core and VAC set properly managed by the kernel (think of it as modern kernel switching between task stacks), that particular routine wasn't designed to be reentrant. So it was using various global variables ("erasables") for its own purpose, that when interrupted in unluckly place might have caused very bad behavior.
How likely all of above is to occur, depends on the exact profile of fluctuating load caused by the confused radar peripheral. I guess that's why Mike Stewart is trying to replicate these issues with real CDU.
reply