There's a version of Gell-Mann amnesia propelling the "what jobs will AI replace" discourse. Predicting whether a tool you (maybe) understand will replace a job you don't understand at all is obviously a ridiculous and unserious exercise. And yet...

The internal term for this is Juicing the Metrics. Nudge taught a whole generation of PMs the power of hijacking a default behavior.

I've always loved the phrasing, "why should I be bothered to read what you couldn't be bothered to write?"

But why deny yourself?

Whole development cycles have been lost to the AI fever dreams of investors, with nary a true customer request driving the roadmap.

As a CEO, I push my team *away* from AI at every opportunity. Some of that is because as a customer, I feel abused by AI platforms. I've spent four years building on Retool, for instance, and I'm ready to leave because a year ago they traded bug squashing for agent building and it's all gone to shit

I don't know how to convince well-meaning parents that elementary school education is not destiny (even college isn't!), but I do know that catering to their insecurities is a bad way to go about improving their kids' education.

I'm a product of "gifted" education and I sat down with my (now 2nd grade) "gifted" kids' teachers in Kindergarten and explicitly asked them to focus on social and emotional learning, because curiosity would take care of the rest. Kids (especially gifted kids) need to learn to be humans first.

Between The Most Dangerous Game, The Lottery, and The Necklace, middle school English turned out to be quite a life prep course.

Reminds me of a favorite piece of academic writing from right after the GFC:

Bubbles, Gullibility, and Other Challenges for Economics, Psychology, Sociology, and Information Sciences
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

"Everyone's eager to write stories about how companies that don't use AI will be at a competitive disadvantage. In this paper, I ask, what if the opposite is true?"