HomeDeLaPot

The article included the picture of the "grocery store spinner" to illustrate that in Canada, mass market paperbacks are still being sold and for half as much as they were sold for in the US.

Every YouTube ad I see now is an AI-generated scam ad hawking everything from free electricity to anti-aging products to birdhouses hand-carved by an AI-generated senior citizen. I've seen some multiple times, days or weeks apart. Their advertising standards are a complete joke.

>Across the two years, pasture beneath the panels produced 38 percent less herbage than the open field, with the fully shaded strips directly beneath the panels growing thinnest.

>That figure describes pasture production, not the amount each lamb ate.

Thank you, Captain Obvious? Trying to clear up a misconception that nobody actually has just ends up creating more confusion. I find myself rereading the previous sentences to make sure I didn't miss something. This seems to be a fairly common AI writing pattern that would best be removed by a human editor.

Oh cool, as soon as I saw the title I was wondering what the useful shift was!

What country uses that type of electrical plug?

When will we see the world's first fully autonomous company?

The story of a smart home that can't tell when you're not home! :-)

This seems key: "So, I now limit written papers to two pages and base students’ grades more heavily on oral discussions of their work, which allows me to probe their thought process and challenge their decisions."

Oral discussions. That's probably the way education should work, but it requires the professor to spend time talking to each student individually, so it might not scale to large classes with hundreds of students.

There are many types of houses in between suburbs and skyscrapers. This is "missing middle" housing. Duplexes, townhouses, small apartment buildings, etc. Look at Old Town Alexandria, VA on Google Street View, for example.

I guess for me, blatant LLM style reminds me of LinkedIn-speak. Both are distracting and come across as fake. Somehow it's more interesting to read something in another human's unique style than to read something that's obviously been passed through a filter.

You start reading. Then it hits you. The short, choppy sentences. The stock phrases. This wasn't written by a human — this was generated by AI.

Maybe a more general focus on getting students to practice critical thinking and fact-checking would be better. AI could be addressed as a small part of that, since chatbots are everywhere and students need to know how to filter out their BS.

But are NSF grants really necessary for this? To what degree is this funneling taxpayer money to buy ChatGPT subscriptions and advertise to students by getting them to use AI in the classroom?

You're missing the point—we are each supposed to have our agent summarize the key points for us so we don't have to read all the generated slop!

Let me do that now: hmm, this article seems to be a complaint about applications that waste energy.