Given that every positive case needs to be verified by a doctor anyway because the patient has breast cancer, and every negative case has to be checked because it does a worse job than traditional methods... It only costs more.
Depends on the false positive rate. Hypothetically one can 'just' tune the model so false positives are low. This will increase false negatives but those are 'free' as they don't require follow ups. So long as the decrease in cost per real positive[0] goes down there's a benefit to be had.
[0] accounting for false positives, screening costs for true negatives, etc. etc.
> This will increase false negatives but those are 'free' as they don't require follow ups.
Increase in false negative rate significantly reduces survival rate and increases cost of treatment. We have huge multiplication factor here so decreasing false negative rate is the net positive option at relatively low rates.
This article isn't really about AI. It's about how this blogger doesn't value high-school education beyond it serving as a day-care. Talking about AI is for dressing this up as a controversial hot-take for click-bait.
The root of the flaw in this thinking is a common assumption that school is designed to create drones for the workforce rather than to round out human beings. Giving youth an opportunity to be a part of a shared understanding and a shared culture that is rooted in the history of the previous generations.
This kind of essay is on par with a general theme of discrediting and devaluing teachers and school in English speaking countries that is reinforced by Hollywood and out of touch billionaires. It's not doing us any favours because kids pick up on this disdain and make if part of their own identities.
I'm even more convinced by this when I look at other things this person has asked GPT to write for them. Their core focus is on convincing people not to value traditional education so that they can sell their own competing product.
I'm not convinced staying in classrooms from ages 16-22 is actually conducive to a well rounded citizenry. USA must have the highest proportion of 4 year graduates in the world and look where it's got us. It's just more time to grow into your cliques and push off the real world while "preparing for the real world"
Source: John Taylor Gatto, Jonathan Kozol, Ken Robinson to some extent.
When I was in university I went on a trip to Shanghai and met a woman my age who started her career at 14, she was global head of marketing while I was still trying to pass calculus...
> USA must have the highest proportion of 4 year graduates in the world and look where it's got us
It doesn't.
> look where it's got us
Richest nation on earth. To be fair that's as much tied to population size, resources, colonial-style capitalist exploitation as it is to American Exceptionalism and a good education system. And the US is suffering from a worsening wealth redistribution problem. But that's only going to be solved with more and better education not less.
Thanks for the correction, I was late night scrolling and didn't want to look it up, but looks like we're behind UAE, Ireland, Switzerland, Singapore, Belgium.
I do want to push back that higher level of education attained equates to universally better outcomes, because there's opportunity cost to being in school into your twenties, not becoming a taxpayer, getting deep into debt only to become underemployed. Again, people I've met who entered work at a young age are plenty intelligent and more skilled in their field than peers who went to grad school. I don't know that schools increase your intelligence, just your credentials.
Well that and decades of being the only industrialized nation not carpet bombed in a world war we have been riding on that and being issuer the global reserve currency for decades.
> And the US is suffering from a worsening wealth redistribution problem. But that's only going to be solved with more and better education not less.
I'd love to hear how. I'm a firm believer in education, but saying we can fix the wealth gap by just educating our kids even more is like saying we can stop deforestation if only we had even sharper axes.
The wealthiest are the luckiest, but also the best at exploiting resources like an educated work force. I can't think of a single invention of our modern day that has lessened the wealth gap. (The last one that did was probably the guillotine, and even that was a small blip on the graph.) The latest invention AI, is only accelerating the widening of the gap, just like other inventions before it. Point being, just being smarter seems to only accelerate the gap, not fix it. Unless you know of some hidden inflection point coming up.
I do think having a good understanding of our political systems, etc is obviously important. And I suppose that would fall under the umbrella of education. But if we just pumped out more doctors, each doctor just gets a smaller slice of the doctor pie. Elon isn't magically going to get less money.
> a general theme of discrediting and devaluing teachers and school in English speaking countries that is reinforced by Hollywood and out of touch billionaires
It's the dumbest thing for a culture to do to itself. I'm often so incredulous I want to believe it was actually done by soviet-bloc propaganda to undermine the west.
Sharing ideas leads to feedback. People in their late 20s and early 30s are only just feeling like they are cementing their identities, so they seek validation.
It seems like the author is referring specifically to the style of choral music found in churches, although the same thing can be said about other choral genres like barbershop.
However, Backstreet Boys or many of the Korean idol groups do music that could be classified as choral that's highly accessible.
The main difference is drums. Music without drums or some rhythmic equivalent is less accessible.
The other main difference is not in accessibility, but economics. Is cheaper and easier to make a band with only one featured vocalist, so most professional bands do this. It's what people hear, and therefore what they identify with and therefore what they go out of their way to listen to.
There is, actually, a not insignificant repertoire of secular choral music although it’s lost a lot of its popularity. The liner notes for one collection of Aaron Copland’s music made a comment about how it was strange that Copland had written very little choral music given its indigenous popularity in the US in the first half of the twentieth century.
But yes, solo vocalists have been the primary mode of vocal music in English-speaking culture which presented a challenge in creating post-Vatican II liturgical music which was intended to echo the local culture (something that Dennis Day noted in his book, Why Catholics Can’t Sing). Folk and rock both tend not to work well as a format for congregational music although the former works better in my opinion. Certainly, I don’t buy Day’s argument that the obvious liturgical choice is old-school hymnody (I lean more towards incorporating more of Black gospel instead).
I wouldn’t call the various harmony-based groups like Backstreet Boys or K-Pop as choral music. What makes choral music choral is the fact that there are multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
No I wouldn't class the artists as choral artists at all, I'm just pointing out that there are examples of polyphonic singing with multiple voices in pop music, it's just that it's usually accompanied with a rhythm section. Pieces that feature choral singing can be very accessible, although acapella music usually isn't. But take the example of Pentatonix someone mentioned earlier (which isn't really choral singing either because of the lack of voice doubling). What makes them accessible is that they use beat-boxing to provide the rhythm line for the punters.
What about groups like the aforementioned Pentatonix and The Harvard Opportunes. They are quite literally multiple voices singing each part in the piece.
I would be interested to hear some examples to see if that would change my understanding. I am expecting to hear things that are very upbeat and rhythmic though.
It doesn't have drums or their approximation, but Saunder Choi's "The New Colossus" is a very rhythmic and emotional work. The words are from Emma Lazarus' poem engraved on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUtWfSNRRY
Another rhythmic piece that comes to mind is Wild Embers by Melissa Dunphy, setting the words of Nikita Gill, who started off as an Instagram poet. Lots of videos of this one, I'm picking one at random: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCSjvGPERKQ
Another piece by Melissa Dunphy, "Dancing in Buses" is from American DREAMers. It begins with a nod to reggaeton, and tells the story of a kid crossing the border, with the bus coming under gunfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcfNiHDefBw
This is pretty much a living folk choral tradition. Maybe a bit influenced by classical church choral singing, but definitively its own thing in both vocal style and arrangement style.
In our Alpine region there is a long tradition of male choruses singing folk songs about mountain life and tales through rich harmonizations of pieces.
An example from coro SAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQZyZggh3SQ
That's a cool project, but learning music via music theory is a bit like trying to learn English via grammar theory. It's backwards, and out of the hundreds of musicians I've met, I've never met one that walked that path.
Strong recommendation: Hire a teacher. Even with experience playing four instruments, and when I decided to learn another, I still hired a teacher.
One of my goals for this years was to get a jazz teacher, specifically for guitar.
A layoff killed that goal for the foreseeable future.
Theory has helped me practice like I think you're supposed to. More structured,
more analysis. It also tickles the same part of the brain the certain comp sci topics do.
I think it came from wanting to learn how to improv, and then wanting to make my own songs. So I make a few tracks a week, of different genres, depending on what I'm interested in at the time. I've seen improvement, and I take notes about what I learned/what works.
To be fair, there is a massive percentage of non-productive jobs that are mostly security guards for goods and locations, and many inefficient roles related to ticket clipping, inefficient distribution and marketing that all stimulate the economy without being productive.
reply