The original note, as written at the time
How about this. Whoever wants to become anything should just pursue it. A series of guidelines are given and all a person has to do is present to a career selection AI that also somehow records his everyday logs of his learning and engagement activities.
Ongoing development
How about this. Whoever wants to become anything should simply pursue it.
A set of guidelines is published, and all a person has to do is present themselves to a career selection system that has also been keeping a record of their learning and engagement — what they actually studied, actually practised, actually finished.
The second half is the radical part. We currently select people on evidence they assemble in a panic at the end: a certificate, a CV, a portfolio put together in a fortnight for an interview. All of it is retrospective, all of it is curated, and all of it rewards the person who is good at presenting rather than the person who is good at the work.
A log kept continuously is a different instrument. It cannot be gamed as easily, because gaming it means doing the work. It also cannot be forgotten, which matters enormously for people whose learning happened in fragments — a course here, a job there, three years of self-teaching that leaves no document anywhere.
And it should be presented as a body of evidence, not a verdict. The moment a system like this decides who may become what, it becomes a gate, and gates always end up defending themselves. The design must keep the person’s own decision at the centre: here is what you have done, here is what it is usually enough for, here is what you would still need.
The fear is surveillance, and it is legitimate. A log of everything you learn is also a log of everything you failed at, and a person should be able to keep some of it private and still be assessed.
Guidelines and evidence. Not permission.