Yeah as much as I like the idea, I know there will be some brilliant and driven students who would have a hard time with this due to temperament. For me, if I’m excited about something, I can talk for hours. Maybe not so for everyone though. Then again, not all brilliant and driven students test well either, so… pick your poison?
I wish we were doing this in the US even before AI was an issue. I suspect it would reorient students to their work in some pretty cool ways. I mean, it might feel like torture for some and maybe that’s not so much a bad thing. I’m sure I’m not thinking of some downsides to this too, but it seems like such a great counter against “factory” schooling. Of course, this could be a lot more work for faculty and could be hard to keep up with a huge student population. Again, maybe a feature more than a bug.
> Is someone irresponsible enough to pursue causal, unprotected sex with random partners also likely to be responsible enough to visit a doctor proactively and comply with a prep regimen?
Yeah, me. What a wild statement to make. It’s a big world out there, my friend.
I dunno man if you want to answer claims about probability with single a data point that's up to you, but nobody can take that seriously, whatever the topic.
“Is someone irresponsible enough to drive a car (the second leading cause of accidental death) also likely to be responsible enough to comply with seatbelt laws?”
The word likely doesn’t make this argument any less dumb
If you’re referring to a solution to large datasets without not being auditable, she actually did provide a solution. Something to do with data sheets for these training data sets similar to those provided for hardware components. At least, if my memory serves me.
I was more irked by the diversity of teams developing these concern. Which, feels like a benign enough concern, but not one where you can just stop progress.
Worse, I think it is a ridiculously safe bet that the US was home to the most diverse teams you could get for this sort of work. Asking the good faith participants to stop participating would have decreased the stated goal.
No it doesn’t. Judging by a few of your other comments, you probably just don’t like the flavor of this particular kool-aid. This kind of low-effort, ad hominem comment is typical human-generated slop.
This is really interesting, but does anyone think this is something that might generalize for ambiguous reasoning situations with more development? I am no expert, but sudoku and puzzles seem like very well-defined problem spaces.
