personjerry

A quick pass with the AI and it'll tell you:

I have specific system guidelines that apply to the 2020 election.

what is Orbs?

So it's another codex/claude cloud or modal?

Like other comments, I can't help feel uncomfortable with the way everything was written defensively, where every example is used to justify the author's actions.

The author concludes near the end:

> That said, I have no judgment to pass on you here.

And follows with this as the very next sentence:

> We are all human beings, we all make poor choices and mistakes in our lives.

Which seems to be clearly judging the students for their "poor choices and mistakes".

I feel the author is out of touch with the students and the times; If so many of them are leveraging AI perhaps the better move is to find ways to align that usage with learning. He quotes:

> "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

But if there is such a scenario in a classroom rather than a courtroom, then perhaps the methodologies should be revisited?

It feels like the author is the ACKCHYUALLY meme, striving to prove themselves technically right, rather than empathizing with the students, which I feel shows a lack of maturity for an educator more than 2 decades older than his students.

I understand that education and evaluation is difficult in this AI era, but I can't come to agree with the author's actions or conclusions in this case.

The title is misleading, but other than that the results were terrible.

Absolutely crazy and useless article IMO in that they never mention AI.

They cite readers being interested in learning - well what's the best way to do so nowadays? Ask ChatGPT.

Even worse, you can ask ChatGPT to describe the learnings of any reasonably popular nonfiction book directly. No it's not a perfect substitute, nor will the learnings be as memorable, but it's reasonably good enough. That's why I haven't bought a nonfiction book in a long time.

what's updog?

I believe that part serves to emphasize the main point.

To elucidate for this particular example, before AI agents existed, projects with this level of data and depth might've needed to be monetized in order to justify the resources to bring it to life.

Now that the barrier is much lower, the creator didn't mind spinning up and providing it with no monetization (e.g. no ads).

> There were plenty of interesting side-projects on the internet before AI.

This is a strawman.

The original point was "the economics ... have changed"

I read this as, it's much easier to spin up a project of this scale even non-monetized, and more people are able and willing to do so.