Mostly thinking out loud here.

Education is already fundamentally busted on like 50 levels. Increased anti-cheating tech is so far from the original point of learning that it's not about learning anymore. Grading itself is already a necessary evil at best. And cheating being bad is a conclusion from that.

Okay, education, ideally, is for learning. In practice it has a double purpose of also being for certification. Which is to say, the examination and projects you're supposed to not cheat on are the point. This isn't really a good thing, but it may be a necessary one. Still, a lot of prestigious and/or exclusionary institutions are overwhelmingly about certification and not learning which clearly isn't.

More certification and stricter certification do not ensure more learning. In fact, they're often the opposite. In my own experience as a college student, I've had plenty of classes I cheated with super hard and ones I did honestly, and I've seen no correlation between classes I cheat on and classes where I don't learn much. I've had classes I did honestly, were challenging, got a great grade, and learned shit-all. I've also had classes I cheated on every single thing and learned a lot doing it.

In my experience, too, ChatGPT has been like a total godsend for learning. I ask questions to the professor, which needs to be done during the limited window of office hours, and they tell me to 'look over my notes and figure it out' cause they always do and they never help. I ask ChatGPT and they explain exactly what I want forever and I can ask about anything and I can do it at 2AM.

Only one way to find out. Get in the spaceship, we're making a pyramid.

This article is making a LOT of assumptions, not a lot of which are well founded. First of all, it's assuming largely that society as it is will still exist without huge changes and genetic engineering will not be major factors. Which is absurd, but a sane assumption to make for the sake of having an article that's coherent.

Beyond that, it's assumptions are too much based on a pop-culture view of 'caveman vs modern world' mentality. It assumes that 'anxiety and aggression' are selected against in a developed world, which isn't very well founded, and it assumes that anxiety and aggression are distinct, observable traits.

Furthermore, it's conflating 'societal beauty standards', 'personal sexual preference', 'person people want to breed with', and 'person people are likely to breed with' are all the same thing. Those are all separate groups. The first is a political thing more than anything divorced from the rest. And the second is a far cry from the third and forth.

And the assumption that gender differences will become more pronounced is not at all founded, really. We're in a trend of gender lines becoming more blurred. And it seems in direct opposition to it's vague concept that people will become 'more standardized' which seems to be the opposite of what's likely to happen.

Artist here, making music, some writing and animation, etc. I have plenty of experience, and firmly disagree with everything you said. Art is a truly statistically and AI-solvable thing. Cause it's only limited to expression of the human mind and the end listener/reader/etc receiving the expression. Given that it's limited to the human mind, it's exceptionally solvable. Humans aren't that unpredictable.

I keep hearing people say that AI doesn't 'have a message' with art, but that really doesn't... mean anything. Like, at all. It's just saying 'art I like is more real than that other art', which is a constant in the art world of discrediting and rejecting whatever the new thing is. If the message is emotional or directed or something like that, yeah, AI can do that.

And by my own viewing, I've already seen tons of AI art that's better than the output of a lot of human artists I know. AI models are good with visual images and writing and are very quickly improving. Whether or not it 'touches the human heart' is totally and completely up to the end user. I've certainly seen excellent AI art and have had touching interactions with chatbots, so that's already the case.