Yeah, I work at a CSU and the Teacher's union is against AI. However, the layoffs happened at some of the CSU's where enrollment numbers are drastically down. I think Sonoma State is having a really bad time getting students and CSU Dominguez Hills has always had issues with attracting students compared to nearby CSU Long Beach. I'd imagine at some point these campuses may end up on the chopping block.
Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
111–118 of 118 posts
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, they were not then YIMBY in any other ways after that missed opportunity, either.
What I mean is, it seems like people should moving away from places with high wildfire risk? If so, building more housing as YIMBY encourages is counterproductive. Instead, they should disallow building there. There are similar arguments about building housing in a flood zone. Instead, we should be building more housing in safer places.
In that specific area of Santa Rosa, now that it’s burned it won’t burn like that again for a few decades — it’s not like SoCal LA where it goes up every ten years like clockwork due to chaparral — and it turned out that no one had been enforcing “safe distance around home clear of brush and trees” and so it’s probably now the lowest wildfire risk city in the entire state to build homes in as a result: proper code enforcement, safety protocols, and a case study of how fire spreads through blown embers, dry roofs, wall-adjacent bushes, and open vents.
The fires reached all the way to the highway and very nearly jumped it to burn towards the ocean and they were prepared to sacrifice the entire eastern half of the city to prevent that, because Marin and Sevastopol refuse to thin their trees and it would have spread in a single day to all of North Bay if they let it cross. (And, yes, even Marin deserves not to be razed by fire, however much ire they’ve earned!) So it turns out that building homes near any forest is a bad idea if you’re not also thinning out the forest with selective logging, and as a result the entirety of Northern California and Western Oregon are more or less ‘places with high wildfire risk’. It doesn’t have to be that way, but certainly it will be until leaders grow a spine and stop capitulating to the existing homeowners.
I wrote a rather detailed paper about this with a dozen references spanning the past century for school last year; no AI required, just a handful of luxurious 2500-word days and then an couple more for editing. Best week of the year. Each wildfire costs $100-150M of California GDP in direct and indirect impacts; at $15k/yr fulltime minimum wage, hiring a thousand laborers to carry hand axes into the forest and thin them for a full year — machines can’t traverse and even if they could, machine logging and controlled burns can only happen during 4 months out of 12 — would prevent at least one wildfire (breakeven point) and every one prevented after that would be pure profit for the state economy. You’d think greed would drive them to do it, but apparently it’s anathema to suggest manual labor can solve problems anymore. Maybe someday Santa Rosa or Sonoma County will work up the courage to do it :)
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, they were not then YIMBY in any other ways after that missed opportunity, either.
What I mean is, it seems like people should moving away from places with high wildfire risk? If so, building more housing as YIMBY encourages is counterproductive. Instead, they should disallow building there. There are similar arguments about building housing in a flood zone. Instead, we should be building more housing in safer places.
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely unenforceable. How is this not immediately apparent?
If all assessment is proctored in-person, it's easily enforceable.
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I mean is, it seems like people should moving away from places with high wildfire risk? If so, building more housing as YIMBY encourages is counterproductive. Instead, they should disallow building there. There are similar arguments about building housing in a flood zone. Instead, we should be building more housing in safer places.
Where are the safer places? Pretty much everywhere habitable in California is at high risk of wildfires and/or earthquakes (plus floods in the Delta region). Instead of placing certain areas off limits a better solution is defensible space and stricter building codes. For example, build metal roofs. https://www.fire.ca.gov/home-hardening
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free AI like ChatGPT can assist with offering many different explanations personalized for someone to make it easier to learn. What I can tell you is the following: a lot of academic topics are quite subtle - to get to more than a basic level, you have to learn things that are very subtle, and where you only can judge the correctness of the information years later (basically when you have finished your degree or ev…
>it is not uncommon to hang for hours over a page or even a paragraph, trying to understand why the statement holds Now imagine if AI can explain that page better so someone can understand it in a minute. This is why it is revolutionizing education.
The problem is the "understanding" part: from my experience oneself is the huge bottleneck here: one realizes very fast that the lacking component is one's own brain capacity.
This is also why many mathematicians and physicists are so obsessed about IQ: mathematics and physics are disciplines where IQ points really can give you quite an advantage.
So, the really helpful thing to ask to the AI for is not better explanations, but methods for getting a huge increase in brain capacity.
Because of all this, your point is rather a mixture between a nice science-fiction story and a marketing pitch for an AI company.
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are the safer places? Pretty much everywhere habitable in California is at high risk of wildfires and/or earthquakes (plus floods in the Delta region). Instead of placing certain areas off limits a better solution is defensible space and stricter building codes. For example, build metal roofs. https://www.fire.ca.gov/home-hardening
If they're all the same, why are there fire risk maps for California showing some places to be riskier than others?
Re: Different attitudes towards AI in California's university system
#118Find me a university that bans AI usage on campus in CS courses. I don't mind if students have access to AI and use it to help study, but I want some kind of assurance that they are able to build things without using AI. As a hiring manager, I will immediately prioritize hiring graduates of that school. I can teach someone who knows how to code how to use Claude Code. I find the other way around quite difficult.
I heard they do CS exams on air-gapped machines at UC Berkley. Use of AI to do CS homework is strongly discouraged, and if someone cheated, it shows up at the exam...