A Japanese university decided to commit suicide for fear of being replaced by AI. Is this a stupid thing?

  Just past July 30th, the famous scenic spot "Dongxunfang" in Sakai City, Fukui Prefecture, Japan became an interesting event scene.

  It is reported that a freshman girl majoring in art almost committed suicide here. This incident has aroused widespread discussion and concern, because the motive of suicide is actually related to the rapidly developing AI technology.

  It is understood that before entering the University of the Arts, this girl won an award in a national painting competition in high school and was admitted to the University of the Arts on the recommendation of her teacher. However, after only three short months, she began to feel physically and mentally exhausted and afraid.

  It turns out that AI technology has been introduced into the courses of art subjects. Now, people only need to input the theme to be painted, and AI can easily generate a wonderful painting.

  It used to take hours or even days to study the subject, but now it only takes 10 minutes. This makes the girl feel helpless and afraid of being replaced by her talents and efforts.

  Fortunately, in the process of the girl's suicide, the passing rescue team took timely action to save the girl's life. However, the social trend of thought derived from this micro-event is really worth discussing and thinking about.

  When I wrote this article, I was sitting on the high-speed train from Beijing to Wuhan. At this moment, the clouds are gradually dissipating outside the window, and the northbound train that sometimes passes by. The mother and daughter behind her talked with a slight accent in Central China. The topic was that after the trip, the children must willingly go to the Olympic math improvement class.

  Today, the activity of "Talking to 100 Readers" has been going on for about two months, and I have the honor to talk with dozens of readers. Among them, an unavoidable topic is-how should children face the society that will coexist with AI tomorrow? What major should they choose?

  In fact, I have always thought that the discussion of this issue is of little value. If we think about university majors from the substitution of AI for human beings, then I think 80% of the majors in universities are impossible now. In other words, the truly guaranteed majors are in vocational high schools and technical schools.

  The question is, can we accept it?

  Frankly speaking, I think the impact of AI technology on education itself will not be reflected in job selection. The real impact should come from whether you can accept the fact that "you have come all the way by yourself, but most of your" efforts "are useless to the place" when you look back at your children's educational process in the future.

  The contents of my efforts include "learning ahead", "desire for control", "high cost of chickens and babies" and "seemingly seamless planning"

  When faced with the employment pattern that is likely to be reshaped by AI in the future, the most anxious group in the whole society is undoubtedly the middle class. Because they pay the highest opportunity cost in education in this era.

  Imagine, when middle-class students send their children to good universities with huge investment in education, can they accept that in a few years, the number of "middle-level office white-collar workers" will be numerous, and the salary of these positions may not be much higher than that of a forklift worker?

  Can they accept the companions who grew up with their children, but have no learning talent, because when they became cooks, they finally lived a very good life?

  I think of an interesting example:

  According to a data, in today's South Korea, the family income will directly affect the performance of each candidate-the income gap of about 5 million won (about 30,000 yuan) can open the gap of about 43 points.

  Behind the family income is not only the expensive tuition fees, but also the performance of the interview and the award-winning situation. Every item is piled up with money, and intelligence and resources are firmly grasped by the upper and middle classes.

  43 points is already a natural barrier in front of Korean high school students.

  In today's East Asia, middle-class families can use their own economic ability to build a moat for their children's academic performance, help future generations enter good universities, and finally find decent jobs.

  But in the near future, the rapid iteration of AI technology may fill the "43-point" moat piled up by this huge cost. At that time, how will we view ourselves and this ridiculous world?

  It is an indisputable fact that, at least at this moment, no one will stop his dubious steps.

  For example, Guo Qiqi, who has been in Hong Kong for five years, is already familiar with the "hidden rules" of life in Hong Kong in order to let his children enjoy the "education dividend". (Some quoted Hong Kong to compete for mainland elites: a misplaced trip to @ Daily People)

  In business, people always ask him where he lives when they meet for the first time. Guo Qiqi later understood that Hong Kong is a small place, and every corner has its price. Others can judge how many assets you have through the community where you live, "and then decide which class to tell you."

  The first thing to see the landlord when renting a house is to show the salary list. This is the experience he has accumulated from moving many times-it not only proves that he can afford to rent a house, but also implies his social status: this foreigner is not a poor boy and is not easy to bully.

  Whether children can go to a good kindergarten depends on whether parents can pass the interview. "Dad had better be a boss or a company executive, and mom doesn't have to go to work with the baby alone. If the parents-in-law are still working and there is no money at first glance, it may be difficult to pass the interview. "

  A cruelty emerges in front of us: the class screening in this society began earlier than expected.

  Guo Qiqi still remembers the day when he sent his children to school. It was a good kindergarten. The principal proudly said that they could train their children and work for Li Ka-shing in the future.

  Guo Qiqi was dumbfounded. "Working for Li Ka-shing is the ideal of life?"

  One thing that Guo Qiqi's story made me think is that, under a social system that is completely dominated by the theory of evolution and the law of the jungle, "climbing to the top and becoming a predator" is the only choice for survival. However, is this kind of climbing itself really the same as what we understand as a "good life"?

  Do we really want to live in a better world? Or in essence, do we just want to be one of the guardians of the cruel world of the jungle?

  I know someone must have told me that you can't change the world. What can you do if you don't climb up? If this is the case, I have some expectations for the shuffling effect of AI technology-the current rules of this world probably can't be called correct.