I think at this point it’s really important that I keep reminding myself of the principle which, translated from the Bahá’í writings, reads: “A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men.” I’ve noticed that my tone is often very critical—maybe even sarcastic—and that I criticize things sharply. Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about how I could make the whole thing more positive. It’s a process; I’m still working on it and will do some exercises on it. But at the moment, my flow is simply that when I see things I perceive as very negative, I name them as such.
The same passage also says: "...it clotheth the words with meaning." In Germany's state-subsidized retraining market, the exact opposite is happening: words are stripped of all meaning to siphon off public funds via training vouchers.
And that, of course, includes this big market, this big industry of so-called education providers (Bildungsträger) in Germany—this whole landscape of providers certified under AZAV. Over the last few weeks, one company in particular has struck me very negatively: it calls itself OneCareer. At first, you could say something positive: it’s English, it’s modern, it sounds good. But when I then see things like this four-week course, which in the end is only about selling some slapped-together buzzwords like “RAG architectures” and “microservices” and many others—which of course have something to do with AI but don’t lead anywhere at all—for 3,000 euros, then I find that very, very worrying.
Because in my experience, you simply learn nothing at all in these theoretical courses—on the contrary: the person gets buzzwords thrown at them that mean nothing to them and that they can’t connect to anything practical. It’s completely abstract, and this course consists 100 percent of English AI terminology. What you would really need is a completely different approach—namely the one I’m now pursuing with UNO.TEAM: showing people how, without technical hurdles, without buzzwords and without abstract terms and definitions, they can use the tools that are already available on the market to get human values going and to share their experiences. So that they can create “human connections”—from one human being to another human being, across the algorithms—so that in the end a real interpersonal connection comes about, and not this abstract, jumbled, whisked-up something that only puts people off. Especially people who need orientation, something to hold on to, and security.
That’s why I actually consider it dangerous to have offers like OneCareer’s certified like this and to burn taxpayers’ money on them. In my view, something like this should be stopped. Of course, we would need a proper reform for that, because once again these are structural problems. Because it’s an industry: at the very top of this industry, logically, is the government, but also these certifying bodies like TÜV—ancient, hierarchical, patriarchal institutions. And on this ground, a new generation of companies like OneCareer emerges, which may seem innovative from the outside at first, but at their core ruthlessly exploit the system and thereby also cause harm to society.
The constructive takeaway: the more absurd this racket becomes, the faster people see through it. To fix the public budget, politicians must stop cutting welfare at the bottom and instead shut down this ministerial subsidy waste at the top.
What do you take away from this thought?
Thank you. Every answer fits – take it with you into your day. Would you like to share something yourself?
