For some reason, some folks think they can make themselves look better by making everyone around them look worse.
And only because at some point they decided to stop hearing anyone who disagreed. It’s not just their kids who stop talking to them. Eventually everyone figures it out, and this type of person ends up pretty isolated later in life.
Social Darwinism disgusts me…
Same, but I picked this illustration for a reason.
Abusive parents often use essentialist language to keep their children bound with obligation and guilt. Vulnerability to that rhetoric tends to be associated with notions of “natural law,” so I suspect a natural metaphor has a better chance of resonating with those that need to hear it.
It wouldn’t occur to me to broadcast this to others on the internet, especially with personal details, even for a random solicitor, let alone a family member, let alone my own child.
And since the kid didn’t anticipate the public ridicule, it may very well be the first time they ever asked for this kind of help. What an awful way to learn your parent considers you little more than an expendable prop in their social life.
In nature, some species prey upon their young. We usually understand this as an evolutionary mechanism, to ensure only the strongest offspring survive. With that in mind, if your parent behaves like this, consider that they may no longer be your caregiver, and it may be time for you to decide what it takes to be the offspring that survives.
We can satisfy this curiosity with a fair amount of scientific evidence.
Of course, most regions of the brain are so densely and variably interconnected that the technical difficulty of “replacing parts” precedes the ethical consideration by many, many years. But we do have a great deal of evidence for how our subjective sense of self is affected by “losing/removing parts” of the brain. Patients are often unaware of change unless evidence for it is overwhelming, and even then are adept at healing/reconciling instinctively. It appears that this is just something brains have evolved to do.
So while the technology (and sheer artistry) required to match and “stitch” these networks is quite staggering, basically magic, it is theoretically possible that a patient could have every part replaced without recognizing any continuity errors in the chimeric stages, until one day they wake up as a completely different person.
Did Ned Flanders write this headline? Reword that shit.
Yeah other commenter was incorrect. They’re sold with only a basic collection of first-party apps (even the carrier locked devices, so far).
To get one with third-party apps pre-installed requires special provisioning meant for employee work phones. (If you come across one of these in the wild, ask the seller to reset in front of you. If the bloatware remains, odds are the device was recently stolen.)
Any major city in the West.
More visibly specialized knives, like cleavers, will turn fewer heads, but only if carried in a demonstrably safe and non-threatening manner, such as cradling the hilt with an outward grip.
Habitually using your own machine for non-work tasks often lets you keep certain records of the research process which begat the work, even while the client/employer owns the work itself through SLA/NDA/AOI. This typically includes records contributing to general “personal expertise,” such as query history, bookmarks, generalized notes, and other non-proprietary information.
It also lends to an overall impression of professional sprezzatura when the client can only see a history of master strokes, without the nitty-gritty details of your autodidactic effort.
Habitually using your own machine for non-work tasks often lets you keep some of the research process which begat the work, even while the client/employer owns the work itself through SLA/NDA/AOI. This includes anything considered akin to personal knowledge, such as query history, bookmarks, generalized notes, and other non-proprietary information.
It also lends to an overall impression of professional sprezzatura when the client can only see a history of master strokes, without the nitty-gritty details of your autodidactic effort.
My guess would be drain installation. It appears to be the minimum grade of a field with potential for a lot of runoff.
Assign it as a research collection task to a junior dev and forget to follow up.
(Fr tho, auto doc frameworks and related instrumentation are easily worth weeks. I will fight your manager.)
I’ve wondered if robotics could allow people with severe disabilities the chance to remotely participate in some normal activities in the real world. A food service job is one of the most boring options I can think of but it’s probably about as “normal” as it gets, especially for a young person wanting to be with friends outside school.
Generally I’d be more at ease with larger bots roaming about if I knew it gave someone the chance to do something they couldn’t do otherwise, rather than some AI vendor a/b testing their latest model live in my vicinity.
Oh, I was actually disagreeing from an educator perspective, I just entertained some of their arguments in case they were serious.
Edit: apparently the whole post was bad faith drivel. I didn’t know anything about the site until now. Will delete comment.
I can entertain the classism argument if they reframe it as a choice, where the alternative is expanding the scope of what is currently considered plagiarism to include the degrees of ghost-authorship privilege buys, since their argument hinges on the assumption that it is acceptable.
The ableism argument is the one I’ve grappled with the most from the standpoint of disability advocacy. Usually we first must ask whether the achievement in question is the proper measurement. In this case it is quite simply creative origin, which might be difficult to deconstruct further without reaching for the terribly abstract. Next comes the more complicated task of determining the threshold beyond which a simple modifier, like a sports handicap, is simply no longer sufficient, i.e. whether such differing abilities merit a separate category with unique standards. In this case, they provide several examples of cohorts with great enough support requirements that AI assistance might be the only option available for participation. Such differing ability would, I think, suggest the formation of a new category with differing standards as a beneficial compromise.
The issue of systemic unfairness is a larger one, I think, than the matter of AI’s use can address. When we are looking for ways to mitigate systemic unfairness, usually it’s preferred to relieve each disadvantage directly and surgically by accounting for the cumulative impedance and ongoing support necessary to give them a fighting chance. What is not preferred is to actually fight their battles for them, however, and that happens to be what the latest LLM’s are capable of: robust human-like authorship with minimal prompting.
Ultimately, I think the real solution to the issue of AI in the liberal arts will be to adapt our notion of what an essentially human achievement entails, given the capacity of current technology. For example, we no longer consider mathematical computation an essential human achievement, but rather the more abstract instrumentation of it. Similarly, handwriting is no longer a skill emphasized for any purpose other than personal note-taking, as with off-hand recall of vocabulary definitions and historical dates. What we will de-emphasize in response to this technology is yet to be seen, but I suspect it will not be creative originality itself.