Owe is an interesting choice of a word. Don't get me wrong, I personally am of the opinion that, by default, most schools for most programs, the related body of works can be accomplished by a warm body ( some of it based on personal anecdotes -- in US mind you ). There are exceptions and those include some non-humanities and, well, people who are curious ( but that was always true for them ).
Still, just because a technology facilitates something does not make their distaste any less potent. If anything, they recognize how much of world's building blocks are a fancy facade ( mild alliteration intended ).
Perhaps, owe was a poor word to use too. I will admit that, however I did not think that would be a point of focus in my comment at the time.
> in US mind you
That is my only reference.
> Still, just because a technology facilitates something does not make their distaste any less potent.
Sure, I agree once again. I may have not explained my position well initially. I just cannot help but feel it's a little hypocritical. And again, hypocritical might be a poor word to use.
We have kids booing a commencement speaker after her AI comment (which I think was a distasteful comment), but at UCLA's graduation a few days ago, we had this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zSqOPOzrIig
I think why I am having difficulty describing what I am thinking is because there is not one homogeneous group of students. There is clearly a subset of students that oppose AI's current and future costs/benefits. Though, at the same time, there is a different subset of students that heavily rely on AI. Some to even a problematic degree.
I have a few friends that are professors at a prestigious, private university in my city. They have all shared their little tricks in how they are trying to combat AI usage in academics. Some put hidden white text in the margins of their assignments. When citations are submitted with work, they look for the the 'utm?=chatgpt' in the urls. Some of the foreign language professors craft writing prompts with words that they know LLMs often tend to translate incorrectly.
Based on the research I can find via a few quick searches, it appears that in the populations of the studies, AI usage is far more common than AI abstinence. I imagine these students want to use AI to benefit themselves but not harm themselves in the future. I do not fault them for that in the slightest, but I do not think that is how things are going to end up working out. I strongly believe the students that misuse AI to do their work for them -- not help them -- will be in for a rude awaking.
As I am reading the source, it is more weird than I initially accounted for. The speech she gave was fairly benign compared to some of the bigger quotables from Musk, Altman or other AI industiry figures. Basically, march of time and 'I remember when' kinda nostalgia.
But given how weirdly benign the speech was, I have to ask. Why the boos? Is there some context I am missing? Was the speaker recently on the wrong side of history?
I am asking half-jokingly, but it seems like there is a giant part that is missing somewhere and I have no reasonable way of explaining it.
Most people in uni have compulsory humanities courses, so I imagine it's not too hard for them to attribute actions by moneyed interests to boost AI to the furtherance of capital, surveillance, and a widening of the economic gap. The fact remains, though, most of these degrees (with the obvious exception of those specific to current AI/LLM technologies) could have been attained without AI before.
Sure, I do not disagree in the slightest. However, I think degrees, while optimistically serving as a certification of a certain level of understanding/knowledge, also provide a sort of social signal. However, Goodhart's Law is still in full effect, so that does complicate matters a bit.
Owe is an interesting choice of a word. Don't get me wrong, I personally am of the opinion that, by default, most schools for most programs, the related body of works can be accomplished by a warm body ( some of it based on personal anecdotes -- in US mind you ). There are exceptions and those include some non-humanities and, well, people who are curious ( but that was always true for them ).
Still, just because a technology facilitates something does not make their distaste any less potent. If anything, they recognize how much of world's building blocks are a fancy facade ( mild alliteration intended ).
Perhaps, owe was a poor word to use too. I will admit that, however I did not think that would be a point of focus in my comment at the time.
> in US mind you
That is my only reference.
> Still, just because a technology facilitates something does not make their distaste any less potent.
Sure, I agree once again. I may have not explained my position well initially. I just cannot help but feel it's a little hypocritical. And again, hypocritical might be a poor word to use.
We have kids booing a commencement speaker after her AI comment (which I think was a distasteful comment), but at UCLA's graduation a few days ago, we had this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zSqOPOzrIig
(Student's explanation: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rswUgIfj1YU)
I think why I am having difficulty describing what I am thinking is because there is not one homogeneous group of students. There is clearly a subset of students that oppose AI's current and future costs/benefits. Though, at the same time, there is a different subset of students that heavily rely on AI. Some to even a problematic degree.
I have a few friends that are professors at a prestigious, private university in my city. They have all shared their little tricks in how they are trying to combat AI usage in academics. Some put hidden white text in the margins of their assignments. When citations are submitted with work, they look for the the 'utm?=chatgpt' in the urls. Some of the foreign language professors craft writing prompts with words that they know LLMs often tend to translate incorrectly.
Based on the research I can find via a few quick searches, it appears that in the populations of the studies, AI usage is far more common than AI abstinence. I imagine these students want to use AI to benefit themselves but not harm themselves in the future. I do not fault them for that in the slightest, but I do not think that is how things are going to end up working out. I strongly believe the students that misuse AI to do their work for them -- not help them -- will be in for a rude awaking.
<< https://archive.is/20260511160009/https://www.404media.co/uc...
As I am reading the source, it is more weird than I initially accounted for. The speech she gave was fairly benign compared to some of the bigger quotables from Musk, Altman or other AI industiry figures. Basically, march of time and 'I remember when' kinda nostalgia.
But given how weirdly benign the speech was, I have to ask. Why the boos? Is there some context I am missing? Was the speaker recently on the wrong side of history?
I am asking half-jokingly, but it seems like there is a giant part that is missing somewhere and I have no reasonable way of explaining it.
1 reply →
Most people in uni have compulsory humanities courses, so I imagine it's not too hard for them to attribute actions by moneyed interests to boost AI to the furtherance of capital, surveillance, and a widening of the economic gap. The fact remains, though, most of these degrees (with the obvious exception of those specific to current AI/LLM technologies) could have been attained without AI before.
Sure, I do not disagree in the slightest. However, I think degrees, while optimistically serving as a certification of a certain level of understanding/knowledge, also provide a sort of social signal. However, Goodhart's Law is still in full effect, so that does complicate matters a bit.
Have you also wondered how many of them owe their college degree to the colored worker that prepped their meals?
No, I have not. I am also unaware of college students booing such oddly specific entity during a commencement speech.