> how will we continue to assess expertise moving forward?
This reminds me of something that I read once - allegedly Aristotle was actually against books; he believed that having ready access to books made it easy to 'fake' the type of education that requires mentorship.
I think Aristotle's perspective doesn't really make sense today because (for better or worse) we emphasize the economic utility of education - is the person actually able to do the job that they claim to be able to? We don't consider the internal changes to the person caused by their education (alas...).
> We will also expect our experts to have the deep understanding that comes from experience in a domain.
I think Chalmer's concept of the extended mind is an interesting framing here - basically it's the notion that your mind doesn't end right at your skull. For the sake of argument, let's assume in the future that we'll have BCI that's good enough to let you text with you mind (something like what Neuralink is going for). If you've got an expert system in your head/pocket that's really good at dealing with some domain and you're really good at _phrasing problems in terms that the expert system can understand_ then you + expert system might have a super-human ability to solve problems in that domain.
If I was hiring for that domain, I wouldn't particularly mind how much of your expertise is in biological tissue.
> This reminds me of something that I read once - allegedly Aristotle was actually against books; he believed that having ready access to books made it easy to 'fake' the type of education that requires mentorship.
I think that was Socrates, not Aristotle. Socrates was very firmly against the concept of writing, and we know all about this only because his student was writing down what the teacher was telling him.
This reminds me of something that I read once - allegedly Aristotle was actually against books; he believed that having ready access to books made it easy to 'fake' the type of education that requires mentorship.
I think Aristotle's perspective doesn't really make sense today because (for better or worse) we emphasize the economic utility of education - is the person actually able to do the job that they claim to be able to? We don't consider the internal changes to the person caused by their education (alas...).
> We will also expect our experts to have the deep understanding that comes from experience in a domain.
I think Chalmer's concept of the extended mind is an interesting framing here - basically it's the notion that your mind doesn't end right at your skull. For the sake of argument, let's assume in the future that we'll have BCI that's good enough to let you text with you mind (something like what Neuralink is going for). If you've got an expert system in your head/pocket that's really good at dealing with some domain and you're really good at _phrasing problems in terms that the expert system can understand_ then you + expert system might have a super-human ability to solve problems in that domain.
If I was hiring for that domain, I wouldn't particularly mind how much of your expertise is in biological tissue.