91–97 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderation in fentanyl, too? Some habits are arguably just vices, that have few justifiable middle grounds.
Fentanyl is on the WHO list of essential medicines and widely used for anesthesia in medical settings. Perhaps try looking up the thing you are talking about before making a moral judgement based on mass media soundbites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bits about learning to communicate in clear and unambiguous way, having a skeptical ear and knowing when to double-check information that is being presented to them, and understanding how to use tools in a way that enhance their own learning should ideally last a lifetime.
Communicating in a clear unambiguous way doesn't actually help with using llms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that moderation when it comes to AI in education is not correct?
Not really, at least not without restructuring the educational system completely. AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught, like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage, so why should children need such a thing? Besides, it interferes with how we teach, which is done by having students write things in their own words (which is just "that which I can't explain, I don't understand", instrumentalized).…
Given how much time I spend teaching people how to use AI effectively, I humbly disagree.
AI slop is not using AI effectively.
> like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage
… especially adults
> so why should children need such a thing?
So that the scope of merits and demerits of the tool are explicit from the start, and this understanding can evolve along with the tool.
Oral discussions. That's probably the way education should work, but it requires the professor to spend time talking to each student individually, so it might not scale to large classes with hundreds of students.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no middle ground, just that the serial killers and the people who insist that all human life is sacred are both destructive assuming that the sacred lifers take it to the extreme(i.e. try to force all resources and politics into saving all life whatever it takes).
An imo even better example is death penalty. Some people are not redeemable. Abolishing the death penalty is a mistake. Another even less controversial example is providing adults and elderly euthanasia under certain circumstances.
I agree entirely.
>Abolishing the death penalty is a mistake.
Unless we can devise a method of perfectly determining guilt, there will always be some false convictions. Personally, I’m not comfortable with executing innocent people. If that means keeping irredeemable killers alive in prison, I’m ok with that.
It read like an ads.
Why push an ads?