A thread for updates on the various ways the internet is destroying everything and the undying hellsites of social media. Let's all laugh at the abyss.
This academic year is going to be interesting.
Already, news reports indicate that different stances are being taken in different states and even within states as to whether students should have access to ChatGPT.
In New South Wales, public schools are reportedly blocking the IP address via their firewalls (although kids can still VPN out so I don't know how they are going to stop any enterprising student from doing so). In comparison, the Catholic schools are apparently leaving it unblocked but are going to shift to more pen and paper assessments.
Personally, I feel the children who don't get familiar with AI now will be disadvantaged as they enter the workforce vs those used to manipulating its systems and are adept at finetuning / using its abilities to increase their productivity. I don't like the idea of using it too much as an academic crutch but we also need to raise individuals who are adept with digital tools to keep up with whatever society requires of them in the workplace.
Oh, I have no doubt students will use AI for their homework or whatever despite school rules, or as you say, using a phone or other device to tunnel out / access it.
There will be silly kids who copy paste whatever the AI produces, without referencing/bibliography or checking plagiarism.
Then, there will be the more intelligent kind who will feed their assignment/ draft work into the AI for enhancement. Those ones will then use the AI to improve the structure / logical arguments of their work, which might give them a competitve advantage over the student who does not get assistance (from tutors/parents/AI).
Those kinds of intelligent kids will use AI "learning" to enhance their capabilities, kind of like academic doping (which already exists with some students doping up on ADHD focus enhancing drugs) - because their work would not otherwise be as representative of their actual raw capability but instead reflect a blending of their capabilities + AI.
If we can reliably predict there will be an uneven playing field from Day 1, it seems the smarter solution, for equality sake amongst children, is to teach ALL of them what it does, and get them all to use it to enhance their learning.
If we can reliably predict there will be an uneven playing field from Day 1, it seems the smarter solution, for equality sake amongst children, is to teach ALL of them what it does, and get them all to use it to enhance their learning.
That strategy presupposes that teachers know what it does and can keep up with "what it does" changing faster than the kids can.
Great points. I wonder what kind of citation will be required for, “AI enhanced” reports/papers. Does that go in the bibliography/references section or as small print on the title page…
Imagine having a vision of the future and all it is is “disrupt Kindle and Audible” as if they’re massive institutions controlling our lives.
Artificial Intelligence and all he can think of is “making movies”.
I can't wait to live Bleak House!
I mean, I was SO disappointed in The Peripheral TV adaptation that it made me pick up the book to re-read it to remind myself how much damn better it is.
Musk just let Nick Fuentes back on Twitter so I guess he's decided the way he's going to make up the $6 billion revenue shortfall the company is facing is to get 750 million Nazis to buy a blue checkmark.
If there are 750 million Nazis in the world, we've got bigger problems
there are worse people still on twitter, Fuentes just didn’t last because he has cultivated a movement so insular and racist that he has forgotten how to dogwhistle.
The article kind of makes that point
"Fuentes’ mistake was immediately going all in on his white nationalism. Other neo-Nazis have maintained their accounts long after the Musk-owned platform reinstated them over the last few months."
So you can be a hateful, white supremist, but just keep it mild.
*this part is a bit controversial but I was thinking it and wondered about other's opinions*
At first I was going to say how horrible that was but isn't that what a diverse society is really? We can't stop people from thinking or feeling certain ways but we can stop them from expressing those ideas loudly, we can stop them from holding public events, etc.
So if these looney's do keep it toned down should they still be barred from existing.
I found this quote from the article mildly humorous:
Gizmodo reached out to the company for comment, but since the platform no longer has a communications team, we will likely not hear back.
The article kind of makes that point
"Fuentes’ mistake was immediately going all in on his white nationalism. Other neo-Nazis have maintained their accounts long after the Musk-owned platform reinstated them over the last few months."So you can be a hateful, white supremist, but just keep it mild.
*this part is a bit controversial but I was thinking it and wondered about other's opinions*
At first I was going to say how horrible that was but isn't that what a diverse society is really? We can't stop people from thinking or feeling certain ways but we can stop them from expressing those ideas loudly, we can stop them from holding public events, etc.
So if these looney's do keep it toned down should they still be barred from existing.
Barred from existing? No.
Barred from Twitter? Yup, still good with that.
So if these looney's do keep it toned down should they still be barred from existing.
"One person, one vote" explicitly implies that arseholes get a voice too.
farley3k wrote:So if these looney's do keep it toned down should they still be barred from existing.
"One person, one vote" explicitly implies that arseholes get a voice too.
I mean, sure, they can easily hold a pen but they aren't going to be terribly accurate while filling in the bubble. And, god help them if they ever want to vote for a write-in candidate.
I feel like Burger Time did this back in the 80s.
Just make sure you're only taking money from plebs, and not scamming your rich investors. Elizabeth Holmes didn't get that memo.
@swolecialism wrote:Amazing how "move fast and break stuff" basically only meant "move fast and break the law" because they figured out that if you got rich enough fast enough the laws stopped applying
Hey, it's the history of America!
@swolecialism wrote:Amazing how "move fast and break stuff" basically only meant "move fast and break the law" because they figured out that if you got rich enough fast enough the laws stopped applying
I love that person's Twitter handle.
I remember one woman who rode BART with Silicon Valley techbros realized that "disruption" was just "white boys crimin'."
I feel like Burger Time did this back in the 80s.
I loved that game... on Intellivision... oh dear...
I'm genuinely becoming convinced a fair number of tech guys like.... don't understand life outside of their idealized, optimized version of reality. Like, they don't understand why you'd read a book, why you're enjoy making a piece of art, it's all just "disrupt" and market opportunity for content.
It's f*ckin' bleak, honestly.
Prederick wrote:@swolecialism wrote:Amazing how "move fast and break stuff" basically only meant "move fast and break the law" because they figured out that if you got rich enough fast enough the laws stopped applying
I love that person's Twitter handle.
I remember one woman who rode BART with Silicon Valley techbros realized that "disruption" was just "white boys crimin'."
1000% it's this. Seems like the people known for kicking off this buzzword are LOUSY with corruption and robber-barroning their way into profits...until it inevitably fails and they lose because it's usually smoke/mirrors/bullsh*t. Every time I hear someone crowing about disruption I look forward to watching them tank on bloomberg.
Pages