> While this sounds generous (and in some ways it is), it does not address the general point that GP is making. That is, the systematic disadvantage which large parts of humanity have w.r.t. to access to the tools. You could say they can't drive a Lambhorgini either, but that also doesn't solve the problem.
This was also the case historically, when being at certain universities, with better professors, better scope of works available at the library, etc, would necessarily provide systematic advantage.
This is the reality of progress. It is always unevely distrubuted.
I do think the open source side of model development is a substantial counter to the pessimism here.
> I don't get why I would use Claude Code when OpenCode, Cursor, Zed, etc. all exist, are "free" and work with virtually any llm. Seems like a weird use case unless I'm missing something.
I'm with you on this. I've tried Gemma and Claude code and it's not good. Forgets it can use bash!
However, Gemma running locally with Pi as the harness is a beast.
You could do with building this isn't the system itself. Use an LLM to assess how well the user engaged, whether they got frustrated, etc. Give them a short (generated?) test on the discussed content to gain data regarding their mastery.
I wanted actual end user feedback. I’ve done very thorough testing on my part. Honestly got very few responses but each and every response was way too helpful specially capturing mobile numbers. I also noted that almost 60% users signed up but did not completed my profile setup. That’s kind of brutal feedback I was looking for to improve the system. I’m sure I’ll get some feedback on algorithm as well since I’ve removed the sign up friction now.
You can read Brian Muraresku's The Immortality Key for a detailed exploration of this topic.
It certainly isn't beyond criticism, but it's points are substantive and well referenced, giving the reader enough scope to tackle the controversial points themselves, not just take the authors presentation on face value.
Perhaps in industries you are familiar with. Many industries, however, would have a continued professional development disposition that benefits from continued access to fundamental research. Mine certainly does and the lack of access impoverishes that professional development.
This does sound like a lot of fun. Since this AI only reaches silver level, presumably such a contest could be quite competitive, with it not yet being clear cut whether a human or a tool-assisted human would come out on top, for any particular problem.
This was also the case historically, when being at certain universities, with better professors, better scope of works available at the library, etc, would necessarily provide systematic advantage.
This is the reality of progress. It is always unevely distrubuted.
I do think the open source side of model development is a substantial counter to the pessimism here.