Again, automation is not what this post is about. Is about
- Credentialing as seen by a tech mogul (Naval Ravitank), who sees it as gatekeeping from meritocracy.
- Me wondering if that's true, why is there's no current alternative in Math or Physics (which I say is probably due to more than merely credentialing)
- An idea of how one could go about creating a self-made curriculum
- Me saying we are far from replacing credentialling.
About your comment:
we are speaking on a gamified platform whose incentives have economic consequences on the real world, that was not possible even 2 years ago. Most questions about automation are problems of "when" not "if", is a consequence of the principles of universal Turing computation.
How secure is research in one or several areas? well, I don't know and nobody knows, but one thing seems sure. Things will change.
Ah, my bad, I keep using automation language. Sorry, seem to have gottenstuck in a wee mental rut there for a sec. On the purely credentialist front Feyerabend makes even more sense to discuss- he wanted to grant the public more control of and more access to science. I personally don't think it's a great idea- look how susceptible the public is to anti-vaxxer ideology, flat-earther ideas, and even just old myth like the "you only use 10% of your brain." The current credential system (the university) for science does a decent job at weeding those most vulnerable to those ideas and that sort of anti-scientific rhetorical manipulation.