91–100 of 156 posts
This is satire.
Your comment, or the post? ;) (I'll see myself out)
- AI *is* how real research is done
- Incentives are such that this is how researchers must work
- Academia institution does not have a structure to accept this reality
Maybe we should take away the grants from the universities and put them into autoresearch loops + human reviewers?
This 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 ?
It is certainly not that case that the point of these exercises is to examine how you, as a person think and approach problems.
I would guess this is a tongue-in-cheek essay (I hope), but it’s probably kind of prescient. I’m old enough to remember when calculators were banned from classrooms, for almost the exact same reasons that people are giving against AI. It’s really only a matter of time.
I would guess this is a tongue-in-cheek essay (I hope), but it’s probably kind of prescient. I’m old enough to remember when calculators were banned from classrooms, for almost the exact same reasons that people are giving against AI. It’s really only a matter of time.
I don't really follow this comparison. The protagonist was able to use an AI in the same ways they could use a calculator or most tools. You don't use them in the middle of delivering a presentation.
Calculators, computers, phones, etc., are standard parts of any design meeting, these days. I interviewed a number of folks, over the years, that brought laptops, and used them to demonstrate their work.
I would guess this is a tongue-in-cheek essay (I hope), but it’s probably kind of prescient. I’m old enough to remember when calculators were banned from classrooms, for almost the exact same reasons that people are giving against AI. It’s really only a matter of time.
X = calculator, Y = addition and subtraction
X = LLM, Y = thinking
they are not the same
"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-…
A funny piece, but what if all of the following are true: - AI *is* how real research is done - Incentives are such that this is how researchers must work - Academia institution does not have a structure to accept this reality Academia did this to itself. By hiring based on volume of output/citations, the way for researchers to win is to game the system better than the next person. AI just exposes that the old power…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really follow this comparison. The protagonist was able to use an AI in the same ways they could use a calculator or most tools. You don't use them in the middle of delivering a presentation.
Sure you do (but I’m pretty sure the original was a joke). Calculators, computers, phones, etc., are standard parts of any design meeting, these days. I interviewed a number of folks, over the years, that brought laptops, and used them to demonstrate their work.
So, really, I don't think the comparison works out.
The calculator is the example that's most directly an important tool that short-circuits something you could do by hand. But again, I've never used one in a meeting and it's not the kind of thing you'd be doing much of in a meeting.