I'm not sure this distinction matters much to most people, though. People hear "defund the police" and draw their own conclusions as to what that means, and it's not a far leap to go from "defund the police" to "welp, guess they want to tie the hands of cops and take away all of their funding so they can't do their jobs"
I think what your saying is that people are drawing the wrong conclusion when they hear 'defund the police'. But, if they knew what was really meant they may actually support it. So the distinction actually matters a lot.
Like if they heard that it meant sending trained mental health professionals to deal with a mental health crisis called into 911 instead of just sending some cops who may very well just shoot them, that might change their minds about it.
No, what we are hearing is that a group for some reason chose a horrible catch phrase that they now say does not mean what the phrase specifically, on it's face, means, and that the group now wants to tell everyone it's not them it's us.
Edit: I think the USA needs to completely change how we approach mental health. My grandfather spent his life cruisading for that. Allowing the catch phrase to distract from that point to the extent that the catch phrase is now pretty much a central focus shows that 'defend the police' very much is a problem.
But, let's complete the idea to make it bulletproof.
Regardless of moving goalposts due to changing definitions, the luxury belief still remains:
Reallocate (vs defund) police still moves funds around. Funds are not infinite.
- Less police means more crime. This means fewer personnel to combat crime. Crime strikes directly at the poorest.
- Less police means more mental care. This means more personnel and facilities to combat mental cases. This had been tried already, with no meaningful decrease in mental problems.
It isn't a good catchphrase, I fully agree. But the reason its been derailed is because there are people actively derailing it and deliberately misleading its meaning. They fight any plan that would diminish the authority and power of police. That's the problem here.
They correctly understood it to mean abolish the police. As was made very clear by those who created the statement as they carried it the BLM riots in 2020
I tend to agree with. A lack of purpose is a big deal for lots of depressed people. Humans need a purpose or they can go down a dark path quite quickly.
Realistically? Grade based on thought process and validity of the argument, not whether it has spelling or grammar mistakes. GPT3 is still pretty incoherent over the span of enough text.
Kids' writing can also be very incoherent, sometimes more so. But incoherent writing still counts as turned in work and will get you points and teacher feedback, but GPT-3 generated should not.
Test the kids on their own essays, for example? Maybe this could itself be automated with GPT-3?
The highest-quality answer involves skilled teachers with enough time who know and understand their students. (Actually the very highest might involve personal tutors but let's leave that aside.)
Going down a few steps you might combine the automated approach with skilled teachers and maybe add human editors who can do support work asynchronously?
Watching my son try it, he spends more time reading the created essay and correcting mistakes in it than he does writing one himself. The checking process is very similar to marking, and I think it's possible he's learning more this way.
(Also, he's madly trying to automate fact checking which is doing no harm to his programming at all!)
No, I mean managing an AI to achieve a random task. Prompting, iterating, filtering - they all require high level input from the user. A LLM is a complex beast, not easy to use (yet).
Let's see.
1) Big corporations are not really ethical unless it benefits them or they fear negative repercussions;
2) Ceasing an action doesn't produce a positive outcome but can avoid a negative one;
3) Anything that is outside of the focus of mainstream media is essentially ignored by the general public.
1 + 2 + 3 -> Apple is afraid that the media could launch a campaign against them for not having ceased advertising on Twitter.
Doesn't your explanation presuppose that media aren't (owned by) big corporations?
Let me try another explanation: Apple thinks Twitter might fall over, and is reducing its advertising to what it's already paid for, so that if Twitter blows up, Apple's financial loss is minimised.
