It's actually embarrassing that she thought all that prompting would have been acceptable during the talk. A qualifed researcher would have had their agent perform the talk on their behalf rather than waste everyone's time.
It's a joke.
I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
31–40 of 156 posts
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#32This is satire.
Honest question : does it need to be said ? It's like the /s sign. Can some people not, for themselves, realize that this text is meant as a more or less a joke ? And before you ask, yeah, I am aware some of the people are on the spectrum, but still... Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?
> Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?
Yes. Humor is very hard to grasp via text, especially sarcastic humor, because in person we use voice and body language to signal that something is meant as a joke.
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#33Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#34Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#35"prepared to do what I do every single day in my actual scientific practice: type a prompt and receive a coherent, well-structured response that I would then lightly edit and present as my own thinking." So, plagiarism. Daily.
What’s going on with social queues today where so many people here are not immediately understanding this is clearly satire?
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#36I see this text as more open ended than a warning. It's a description of a possible future for us to contemplate. Does it have good points does it have bad points? Being satire, the protagonist is a strawman of course, but doesn't she also have some good points? It's not easy to tell where exactly the author stands where, the true argument stops and the satire begins. That's not necessarily a flaw because it doesn't…
>>Instead of a human wearing an exoskeleton, an AI wearing a biological exoskeletonremember this the next time you encounter a request to donate your body.
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#37It's actually embarrassing that she thought all that prompting would have been acceptable during the talk. A qualifed researcher would have had their agent perform the talk on their behalf rather than waste everyone's time.
[deleted]
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#38This is satire.
Honest question : does it need to be said ? It's like the /s sign. Can some people not, for themselves, realize that this text is meant as a more or less a joke ? And before you ask, yeah, I am aware some of the people are on the spectrum, but still... Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?
I regularly get reddit comments downvoted by people who don't recognize it's obviously satire.
Sometimes somebody else comments "why is this getting downvoted, it's satire", and that stops or reverses the influx of downvotes.
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question : does it need to be said ? It's like the /s sign. Can some people not, for themselves, realize that this text is meant as a more or less a joke ? And before you ask, yeah, I am aware some of the people are on the spectrum, but still... Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ?
> Is humor that hard to grasp on the internet ? Yes. Humor is very hard to grasp via text, especially sarcastic humor, because in person we use voice and body language to signal that something is meant as a joke.
And because we typically know enough about a person to tell if the opinion they expressed is consistent with their believes.
Re: I Wasn't Allowed Prompting ChatGPT During My Chalk Talk: This Is Discrimination (2025)
#40"prepared to do what I do every single day in my actual scientific practice: type a prompt and receive a coherent, well-structured response that I would then lightly edit and present as my own thinking." So, plagiarism. Daily.
But when humans do it suddenly it's "standing on the shoulders of giants" I don't get how you can possibly call it plagiarism if it produce a novel breakthrough - by definition, the existing knowledge base doesn't contain the new ideas generated in this process. And we've proven it can handle complex, novel thinking when it solved a significant Erdos problem back in May: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-…
I don't have a problem using AI.
I also acknowledge, when doing so, how I use it.
But, literally typing in a prompt and then massaging its output and then claiming ownership of its plan? Yeah, no.
It doesn't matter if the original article is supposed to be satire. I've been using AI to do some coding, I've been using it to help me plan a much larger project. It's a tool, and it's useful; but I am in control of the project, not letting the AI control me.
Meanwhile in my day job, I've had multiple coworkers pump shit into AI and regurgitate the answer without critical thought. They are letting it make decisions for them without validating it first even.
It's not really satire if we're already dealing with this attitude.