The bottleneck in education is not the amount of pretty animations. [But yes, Claude is a monster.]

This feels like a peer-reviewed advert for what I've been building. If you're acquiring a new skill - genuinely learning something you don't yet understand - AI assistance is NOT neutral. It's actively working against you unless you fight to stay engaged. This is the

Should your teenager learn to code? I think the answer is an emphatic yes. Here’s why. Your kid has exactly one lever to pull in this world: their own knowledge and skills. Nothing else compounds over time. Nothing else transfers between jobs, industries, or whatever tools come

My A-level maths teacher used to teach by saying "open the book, do the odd questions". I'm ashamed to say it took me years to realise that wasn't intellectual freedom or treating us like grown-ups. It was sink or swim dressed up as sophistication. Setting a high bar is cheap.

AI bike-shedding: debating whether Opus 4.6 or Codex 5.3 is the best coding model vs. actually getting good at using them. My social feed is flooded and it’s exhausting. The irony is that everyone forgets that when a better model drops, everyone gets it too. There’s no moat in

AI providers are busy compressing humanity's knowledge into model weights. To some extent, I think of what I'm doing at Nodeledge as pulling the knowledge back out, and carefully structuring it. This involves making all prerequisite relationships explicit, creating clear,

AI doesn't shrink the software problem, it expands it. More capability means more ambition means more novel problems. It's demand-side, not supply-side. Claiming we can "solve software" misunderstands what software is. Software encodes human knowledge and intent into systems

The managing partner in this story gets value from AI precisely because he has the expertise to direct it and catch its mistakes. Take that away and you're generating output you can't verify. Whilst I enjoyed the post I think it gets (at least) two things fundamentally wrong:

You do not have to learn anything. But it may harm your future if you cannot recall, unaided, what you later claim to understand. Anything you do learn may be the only thing they can't automate. I’m only partly joking, but it’s absolutely true that the wave of disruption that's

AI in education goes wrong when it does the thinking the student is supposed to be doing. That's the only part worth worrying about. Everything adjacent to that - setting context, adjusting difficulty, feedback, tracking progress - is fair game. This is not off-loading learning,

Better prompts get better results. Obviously. But prompt engineering has a ceiling, and that ceiling is set by what you already know. There's actually good reasons for this: and key to it is that experts and novices literally perceive problems differently. There's decades

Spicy, but hard to disagree with the core of the argument.

$10M on the table. All you have to do is use AI to derive a new result in theoretical physics. You get the best model in the world and six months. Where would you even start? This isn't hypothetical, by the way. GPT-5.2 did help derive a new result in theoretical physics. So

Translation: our benchmark is not valid, and 50% success rate would get a human fired in under a day / week, but we'll still publish and feed into the hype.