What’s step two?

Das der Bildungsbereich sich adaptiert kann ja sehr vieles heißen. Was stellst du dir darunter vor? Und vor allem: soll es mit der gleichen Ressourcenausstattung stattfinden?

They write models are "useful tools that allow us to assess assumptions inferred from theories", but how do you infer formal models from vague theories? It maybe due to my lack of understanding of modeling but it seems to me like they are using models to smuggel many of the "nonsolutions" back in

I found it curious that the authors argue for formal modeling since many of their own arguments speak against this in my opinion. If laws are absent and human behavior is contingent and context dependent, then I can't see how formal modeling can be a feasible and fruitful approach

Siehe auch: www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15...

So wie’s momentan an vielen Stellen aussieht, glaube ich dass KI grade eher zu net-negativen Effekten führt. Als Lehrender bin ich mittlerweile regelmäßig damit konfrontiert, dass Studenten nicht mehr selber über etwas nachdenken, sondern nur wiedergeben was die KI ausspuckt. Damit geht was verloren

Sind Anwendungen von LLMs nicht dabei, weil sie selten große Sprünge ermöglichen oder weiß man noch zu wenig darüber, wie sie genutzt werden?

Warum klappt das nachhaltig nicht? Und ist andersrum eine nachhaltige Befriedigung wahrscheinlich, wenn weiterhin jährlich mehr Leute in Städte ziehen, als dort Wohnraum geschaffen wird?

Aber reicht das wenn es gleichzeitig so einen großen Zuzug in die Städte gibt?

Ist NIMBYism in deinen Augen ein relevanter Faktor für die hohen Mieten in vielen Städten in DE?

The problem is it’s not possible to argue that human thought and action is determined by necessary causal processes without contradicting yourself.

A world full of mechanisms with underlying foundational laws does sound very deterministic, though.

Not sure if I understand your point correctly. My point is, that there is a reasonable discussion to be had if (or when) it makes sense to talk about causality when we investigate human affairs. When causality is understood in a „strict“ sense, this question becomes important imo.

Fair. Something that speaks for this framework imo is that it puts a lot of constraints on what a causal effect implies. Often however, people (in science!) are less strict about this and imply that causal effects tell us something about the mechanisms (e.g. natural laws) that are involved.

Using causality in such a way when talking about humans would therefore make little sense if we don’t want to assume full deterministic human beings. Then a non causal (but also not confounded) influence does make sense to me.

But isn’t this a special way to use the term that is tied to the interventionist framework in social sciences? I am no expert in this, but I always thought that when causality is discussed e.g in philosophy, it usually refers to a necessary (i.e deterministic) relation between cause and effect. >

Could you elaborate on that? I would indeed think that causal implies deterministic.