We need to stand up against this by refusing to adapt. Let them scream. They are wrong. I refuse to tune texts into less-fine-tuned form just to avoid being labeled LLM output.
Why would they have to? Just to avoid being accused of using a slop machine? If that is the only criticism you have against LLM produced text, then there is no problem.
And I'm saying this as somebody who is strongly against LLM-generated content of this form.
But I do have somewhat of a problem with unedited text. Personally, I even take the time to edit my HN comments.
And, for the same reason I'd have a problem watching the same episode of the same show every day, I have a problem with reading text that feels like a super derivative clone of tons of other writing. Which is usually what you get when you don't edit your AI-generated text.
If the west would stop vilifying people of different skin color and continent of origin, we'd realize that humanity as a whole does not have that much of a demographic problem. "We are too many" as an argument to keep borders closed and "we are too few, get more kids" are incompatible arguments, unless people are honest about racism.
>we'd realize that humanity as a whole does not have that much of a demographic problem.
Humanity as a whole has a demographic problem. A few countries are just outliers (being still quite above > 2.1), but nowhere enough to offset anything at a global scale, and besides, they're on the decline too, just earlier in the curve.
Second, caring about your ethnic culture is not the same as "vilifying people of different skin color and continent of origin". It's just not treating nations as comprised of interchangable consumer/worker units whose shared culture and history (or lack thereof) doesn't matter.
Most countries have a long history tied to a culture created from one or a handful of ethnicites, they're not just pieces of land for settling associated with a civic contract, like the us has been (and of course even that came at the erasure of the native cultures and populations).
>"We are too many" as an argument to keep borders closed and "we are too few, get more kids" are incompatible arguments
They're totally compatible if you don't treat people like interchangable units arbitrarily exchanged, but as humans with a past, a history, an ethnicity, a culture, and so on, they've build over time.
Same way you wouldn't just exchange one of your kids with another kid, but that doesn't mean you think the other people's kids are inferior.
I'm not saying boys should be beaten whenever they misbehave, but girls are definitely more tuned into the way they're being perceived by others.
With girls, you'll get the same corrective effect from an uncomfortable grimace as you would a wooden spoon.
I'll also add since this is about bullying, the type of bullying behaviours girls engage in is much less physical and a lot more underhanded. It's much harder to correctly identify who's the victim and who's the perpetrator.
How on earth is that an acceptable argument for physical abuse that is directed purely at boys?
I'm not saying girls should be beaten too. But the ethical blindness here is striking.
Besides, girls are just as much capable of bullying as boys are. Society might have taught them to use different methods, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable or any less vicious.
I came here from a discussion about CS students who should not be bothered to set up email filters. How can they ever expect to be able to digest just the first paragraph in that article?
This kind of attitude isn’t long for this world. The time for this knowledge locked up in academia is over and in 15 years we’ll look back on this time as the dark ages as open code and models eclipses it.
None of this stuff is as difficult to understand as people claim it is once you work with it.
FWIW I found it quite straight forward. But then I did have some linear algebra back at uni.
That said I do think it's a good habit to either write out abbreviations in full or link to say Wikipedia, eg for PCA[1]. It's a well-known tool but still if you come from a slightly different field it might not ring a bell.
If a CS graduate can't figure out some simple gmail labels and filters then they should not be awarded that degree. Plain and simple. It's not rocket science.
And there are no other students at any college other than CS students? I'm not sure why a biologist or a literature student would need to be au fait with Google's admittedly fairly unfriendly email management setup.
Digital literacy is important to every field. Email filters are not some arcane computer science concept, they are the modern equivalent of filing physical mail into the right folder/pidgeon hole/inbox/whatever.
Biology is a great example because of just how important digital record management is to experimentation in the field.
Or phrase it as reusing exiting tech because "it is cheaper" ending in having to reinvent it because all the people who designed it and made it have gone.
IT isn't even clear that is bad - SpaceX is famous for designing rockets from scratch that are better than the old technology everyone else has been using.
That happened in the reverse way. The government fired and underpaid a lot of people at Nasa ... and Musk hired incredibly experienced people, who became experienced on the taxpayers' dime, to build a rocket, for huge payrises.
The biggest but not only example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller (yes, lots of subcontractors involved, however, Nasa paid, with a bonus percentage provided by the US military)
Note that Mueller gives the payment situation at TRW, and the fact that he "wasn't appreciated" as a direct reason to go to SpaceX.
What did you think happened? Does anyone actually believe Musk did the technical design for that engine, just because he claims so? Or I should say he constantly claims it, staying slightly away from direct claims to avoid getting caught in lies (well ... getting caught AGAIN).
SpaceX has nothing to do with any part of the Artemis II crewed lunar fly-by. They were considered and rejected. It was entirely legacy aerospace contractors. SpaceX is under contract for parts of future missions including the lunar lander.
reply