etherealG

I think like every field this revolution reveals the cracks, good teachers use AI to enhance teaching material and experience for students while weak teachers complaint they can't keep up with student's access to Ai that out-paces them.

AI forces us all in every field to be better at what we do, and coupled with the previous innovation of the internet only reveals the drastic variance in quality of skills. Teaching is no different.

Good teachers use AI. Bad teachers complain AI is ruining their job, but I posit it's only revealing they were never able to excel beyond their students in the first place.

A savant exceeds their teacher fast. Even faster with AI.

And a meta-point on top of the objectively better revenue argument swinging back to the other point about honor: if some or even most of the people involved in the honor system believe it works for the purpose of maintaining honor between each other, then it will encourage honorable behavior, even when there's significant dishonorable behavior.

The fact that most people don't know that the honor system is about money not honor is part of what makes the money part of the honor system work.

And what I find fascinating is I see similar mimicking by my 5 year old. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to call this a lack of being genuine. Sometimes emotions are learned in humans but we wouldn’t call them fake.

I don’t want to declare machines to have emotion outright, but to call mimicry evidence of falsehood is also itself false.

Replace apple with nothing. Replace now with always. Replace ads on with nothing. You now understand news.

News is a scam. It’s called propaganda. We knew this for a long time.

Because google search and llm teams are different, with different incentives. Search is the cash cow they keep squeezing for more cash at the expense of good quality since at least 2018, as revealed in court documents showing they did that on purpose to keep people searching more to have more ads and more revenue. Google AI embedded in search has the same goals, keep you clicking on ads… my guess would be Gemini doesn’t have any of the bad part of enshitification yet… but it will come. If you think hallucinations are bad now, just you wait until tech companies start tuning them up on purpose to get you to make more prompts so they can inject more ads!

I'm so sorry that's the situation in your country. Another answer to your message from Germany is pretty close to my experience in France, child protection is way less combative and genuinely invested in what's good for children.

I think I might enjoy the CPS scenario... let them call CPS, and wait for CPS to arrive, and then discuss with CPS who is endangering the child, the parent or the school. I'm pretty sure a judge will quickly decide whether their rule makes sense or not, and I think judges in child protection cases are going to quickly side with what's important for the child.

I HATE this kind of nonsense, and threatening you as a parent is only making things worse. Why not offer a way to handle this on a simple website? It would have lower cost to the school and be more accessible to anyone with any device able to access websites. Nonsense.

Because once you figure out the correct way to handhold, you can automate it and the tediousness goes away.

It’s only tedious once per codebase or task, then you find the less tedious recipe and you’re done.

You can even get others to do the tedious part at their layer of abstraction so that you don’t have to anymore. Same as compilers, cpu design, or any other pet of the stack lower than the one you’re using.

But the way they learn to be wise in the context of using LLMs is to try using them and fail, just like all learning experiences. Companies insisting on the use of these tools seems logical to me when the assumption is that they will, once learned, be better than previous methods of working, but only with practice.

how do you know what you want if you didn't write a test for it?

I'm afraid what you want is often totally unclear until you start to use a program and realize that what you want is either what the program is doing, or it isn't and you change the program.

MANY programs are made this way, I would argue all of them actually. Some of the behaviour of the program wasn't imagined by the person making it, yet it is inside the code... it is discovered, as bugs, as hidden features, etc.

Why are programmers so obsessed that not knowing every part of the way a program runs means we can't use the program? I would argue you already don't, or you are writing programs that are so fundamentally trivial as to be useless anyway.

LLM written code is just a new abstraction layer, like Python, C, Assembly and Machine Code before it... the prompts are now the code. Get over it.

exactly, the more interesting question: would anyone be willing to prosecute a Meta executive over this? Sadly, I expect no.

Imagine this as a voice chat interface between 2 human beings. This is basically pretending like the interaction of thought and perception of what is on screen is somehow gated by a “I have fully consciously absorbed everything on screen and decided my next action” perfect modeling where both the human ability to perceive and the computer ability to represent information are prefect.

No. That’s not how humans interact with computers. It’s not how humans interact with each other either.

Turn based games can be fun. They are not how we want to interact for day to day life.

Sorry but your idea comes across as one that makes the job of making the computer good to interact with easier, but not as one that makes the computer better to interact with as a human.

Please stop over simplifying a complex system. Humans are complex, the solution is t to be less human. It is for computers to become better at human interaction on human levels.

I’m not sure lacking comprehension of a comment and choosing to ignore that lack is better. Or worse: asking everyone to manually explain every reference they make. The LLM seems a good choice when comprehension is lacking.

Because stock prices and the people's interests they reflect only care about immediate returns that allow investors to then dump those returns into the next immediate returning investment again, to maximize return with no consideration for the overall health of the system they operate in. Capitalism. Long term health of the stock systems. Long term health of the underlying value they reflect. Nothing long term matters in a stock buy at all.

Why do you even ask this question, did the answer really not seem obvious, or was it rhetorical?