- 11/28/2017 11:34:41 PM
@Ariella - why is it that Coursera hasn't done better?
Part of it might be that what I learn at Coursera, while just as helpful in my actual work, doesn't carry the luster of an accredited college. How can we level the playing field so that it's the knowledge that matters, not some accreditation?
And, on the other hand, how do we judge which online or non-traditional programs are worth time and money?
- by Ariella, Data Doctor
- 11/28/2017 12:48:19 PM
@PC We certainly can do with some innovative approaches to education. Not all of them are proving successful, though. I spoke with one of the administrators at the data science school. He said, one ht one hand, online clurses are th eonly way to really scale in a significant way (and they do offer online instruction), but on the other hand, Coursera has not proven to work well.
- 11/28/2017 11:09:42 AM
@Ariella - Naming a school ď42Ē is an indicator that itís not like most colleges.
Iím generally a fan of trying different approaches, as our current system for higher education, while successful, seems expensive and lacking variety.
- by Ariella, Data Doctor
- 11/28/2017 9:21:18 AM
@PC that reminds me of the NYC Data Science Academy. I wrote about its founder and popped into the school once for a visit. While it is far from free, it also has a very rigorous bootcamp that effectively filters out the students who can't hack it. Also here's a fun fact about 42; that's the max number of students they are allowed to have physicallyin the school, acording to what the administrator told me.
- 11/28/2017 12:06:33 AM
@Lyndon - The most interesting thing in the article that you linked was a coding school called 42.
It's an unconventional school. No traditional criteria for admission ( grades, test scores, knowing certain programming languages etc.) Instead you have to survive a coding boot-camp.
Oh and it's free.
- 11/27/2017 11:35:19 PM
How should we "keep some distance" from our robots?
If cell phones are any indication, and I think they are; we won't see much distance between people and their robots in the not-too-distant future.
- by Lyndon_Henry, Blogger
- 11/27/2017 10:39:02 PM
Ariella writes: "It's nice to be optimistic, but we really should be facing possible downsides and getting ready for them."
And relevant to this is a recent Huffington Post article:
Recommendation #3 seems basically the same as Jessica's #1. Other than that, these seem interesting pieces of advice coming at the challenge from different directions.
- by Juju74, Prospector
- 11/9/2017 9:24:10 AM
Are we going to have a choice? Technology, it is certain, helps the man in the deepening of his capacities and competences. But I think we should not become too dependent and keep some distance with these robots. You have to know how to manage at best without their uses because we are not safe from a breakdown ... The thinking heads, it's us above all.
- by SaneIT, Data Doctor
- 10/25/2017 10:56:09 AM
"I'm not sure if there are any jobs that can't one day be automated."
I recently read a little article about the robots that build robots. When the robots start designing robots then I tend to agree that long term there won't be any "job" that can't be automated. There may be some supervisory tasks or positions that we'll want a human touch on, but physical work and labor will be coved by machines eventually if we allow it.
- by Joe Stanganelli, Blogger
- 10/25/2017 9:38:58 AM
@Seth: Uh-oh. Virtual juries. That sure doesn't strike me as palatable. I fear the activist judge who would equate true AI with a human being for the purposes of gathering a "jury of one's peers".