Stephen Downes

"Meet Observation Copilot!" writes Peter Greene. "Your principal can feed it a half page of loose notes about what he saw in your classroom, and Observation Pilot will pad it with a bunch of professional and framework-aligned bullshit until you have pages of mind-numbing argle bargle in mere seconds... And you know that this "tool" is only about five minutes away from the concept of letting a video-cam collect the "observation notes" and thereby reducing the human principal's contribution to zero." In spaces that are regulated - including things like classrooms, courtrooms, workplaces - this sort of technology can be blocked or severely constrained. But in the unregulated spaces in between - the job market, commercial markets, social media - the technology will be widely deployed. Legislation will likely prove ineffective; it's how we build these markets that will matter. 

How much would you pay for Netflix? $10? $25? What Netflix want to do is maximize that number, because they understand that the price of a non-essential good is based on a consumer's willingness to pay. Why does this matter? Because it's irrelevant what percentage of that price comes in the form of taxes or subsidies. Nobody cares; only Netflix cares. Why does this matter? The principle behind CanCon regulations, or more recently, Streamer subsidies to Canadian content producers (or for that matter, the Canada-US Auto Pact) is that people who make money selling content in Canada should pay part of the cost of producing content in Canada. Critics of such plans say that companies like Netflix will simply "pass the cost along to the consumers". That's a lie. You can't simply 'pass the cost along' because the price of the Netflix stream isn't based on what it costs Netflix to stream its content here; it's based on (say it with me) people's willingness to pay. 

The prompt for this post is this image, which I got from a paywalled account on LinkedIn (it's obviously AI-generated so it has no copyright attached - here's their Youtube channel). Because I couldn't link to the original post, I went searching for the obvious contemporary representation of the same concept: lifemaxxing. Now this is not an endorsement of any of this, but it's well worth talking a look. Here's the pitch: "Master the art of self-optimization. Transform your health, fitness, style, lifestyle, and mindset to become the best version of yourself. Evidence-based protocols for peak performance." The image itself emphasizes a voice-based interface to an AI-based system supporting tasks and priorities, calendaring, finances and goals, journal and coach, habit tracking, and nutrition. It's described as a "personal AI OS" and the objective is personal self-management, with supports, as opposed to (say) a guided program. To me it's an interesting overview of what constitutes 'personal development' as compared to what an academic might call personal development.

The risks Europe faces are similar to those we face here in Canada: dependence on west Asia for hardware, dependence on the U.S. for software. By now we are all aware how quickly conditions can change. This led to the development of this policy, released today by the European Commission. It begins by stating clearly (and correctly) "Technological sovereignty is thus grounded in openness, partnership and fair competition. It does not mean isolation, protectionism, or tech decoupling." The model proposed "includes four initiatives: the Chips Act 2.0, the Cloud and AI Development Act, the open source strategy, and the Digitalisation and AI in Energy Roadmap. These form a cohesive framework, together with existing initiatives, to move towards the goal of creating a 'European technology stack'." We would do well to emulate this approach, to the extent we are able. See more on DT.

This should be the future of academic publishing: "TU Delft OPEN Publishing is an innovative, community-driven university publisher working closely with TU Delft researchers and teachers. We listen to their needs and place them at the center of our services." The output serves the whole community. "Our books and journals adhere to the Diamond Open Access model, ensuring that all content is free to read and free to publish. Authors retain full copyright of their work under a CC-BY-4.0 license." I don't know what the financial model is for TU Delft but I would imagine they're spending less than they would on commercial academic publishing. For institutions looking to follow in their footsteps, here are their policies. Via Alan Levine.

The field trip has always been a staple of my intellectual process. Even when I was younger and had no money, I found ways to travel, buying cheap bus tickets and using it as my hotel. Later, in my car, I explored every road I could, covering vast swathes of Canadian countryside. I combined this with hobbies that would take me out of the vehicle and into the environment, forcing me to experience and feel; hiking and photography took me there. Even studying philosophy, I would find different places to read - Mill's On Liberty in Calgary's Devonian Gardens; Quine's Word and Object in the Edmonton River Valley; the Tao Te Ching on a B.C. ferry; Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript in a dive bar called Andante. That's why forcing people to attend an office or a classroom is so pernicious: it robs people of this, and substitutes conformity for development.