What about research science? It's about the most non-routine activity out there, and it's hard to imagine easily automating or even gamifying it- it simply requires too many new paradigms, new research methods, intuitive leaps, the invention of new tools and measurement standards, etc, etc for me to easily believe that another, gamified Feyerabrandian system might replace it. (Admittedly, as a future research scientist, I might be deluding myself- always a risk.)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Again, automation is not what this post is about. Is about
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.