I wonder to what extent this is students who would have stuck it out now taking the easy way and to what extent it’s students who would have just failed now trying to stick it out.
Which part is encouraging? We rely on the extra ordinary (talent and/or sheer drive) to make leaps of progress - what happens if they are handicapped? If the dumbest fake it and make it to the positions they shouldn't be entrusted with, what prevents the catastrophes?
>We’re either handicapping our brightest, or boosting our dumbest.
Honestly it seems like we're doing both most of the time. It's hard to only optimize resources for boosting the dumbest without taking them away from the brightest.
The brightest will evaluate the tradeoffs properly or will have education that will give them proper evaluations of AI. Maybe some bright people will be handicapped, but it won't be the bright'est'. That handicap on the bright could also lead to new forms of talent and multi-faceted growth.
What percentage of the dumbest will be boosted? What makes a person dumb? If they are productive and friendly, isn't that more important?
What percentage of the dumbest will fall farther or abandon heavy learning even earlier?
