Implicit in this argument is an egocentric and individualistic viewpoint in universalizing how the author learned as "the future" a.k.a. the way everyone should learn. I don't fault the author for having this, many people do. I wish the author reflected on the role of social factors in education. Learning in this post is something that's thought of as individualized, which is something that educators and cultural psychologists have pushed back on for decades. It totally ignores the role of teachers.
Consider: "AI will make humans vastly more effective by automating tedious tasks." Sure, but which humans? If games are indeed "the future," let's pay teachers even less than we do now, or fire them --that will be the response. That's in fact what Graham says --"I had examples to work from, but no teachers or classes." Let's be real here: Graham's father was a nuclear physicist, he likely grew up rich, and he attended Ivy League schools. Maybe he "didn't need teachers" because, I don't know, his home life was very supportive and he knew how to engage in the dominant, elite American culture? I like Graham here, but c'mon man.
Consider: "AI will make humans vastly more effective by automating tedious tasks." Sure, but which humans? If games are indeed "the future," let's pay teachers even less than we do now, or fire them --that will be the response. That's in fact what Graham says --"I had examples to work from, but no teachers or classes." Let's be real here: Graham's father was a nuclear physicist, he likely grew up rich, and he attended Ivy League schools. Maybe he "didn't need teachers" because, I don't know, his home life was very supportive and he knew how to engage in the dominant, elite American culture? I like Graham here, but c'mon man.