Ok, the article starts off with how professors are indoctrinating students in Marxism, so, yeah, grain of salt for the rest of the article. But, if students are relying on computers and not learning, you are allowed to fail them. Done.
Or do the exact opposite, since just because we asked you what we should do doesn't mean you get to tell us what we should do.
Yeah, that article is pretty questionable. The whole transhumanism thing seems like some spiritual warfare shit too.
www.theguardian.com
"We'd be so much better at war if we didn't have these meatbags holding us back."Well, there's also that :
US air force denies running simulation in which AI drone ‘killed’ operator
Denial follows colonel saying drone used ‘highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal’ in virtual test
In sim, AI drone murders its operator because it deemed him an obstacle to its objective.
Well played, Stark.
Aaaand nope.Well, there's also that :
US air force denies running simulation in which AI drone ‘killed’ operator
Denial follows colonel saying drone used ‘highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal’ in virtual test
In sim, AI drone murders its operator because it deemed him an obstacle to its objective.
Well played, Stark.
www.theguardian.com
The thing that made me skeptical was - how would the drone learn that killing its operator would prevent the operator from interfering with its goals? Also, how is the operator interfering with the goals if they are unable to do something as important as prevent the drone from killing them?
This reminds me of a very persuasive argument about why AI is going to stick around: it can be used for porn.
Deepfakes were created by people who got tired of photoshopping celebrity porn and wanted the computer to do it for them.
Follow up story:
I was reading some twat's article on LinkedIn or ResearchGate or something when looking for stuff about AI. He's written a piece explaining how you can use this whizzo piece of software to re-write your AI-generated university essay and make it more "human"-seeming to thwart plagiarism and AI-checkers. He goes on about he importance of being "authentic" and "original". Sure, he drops in some little comment somewhere about making sure you research the area properly, but essentially he's written a cheating guide for university students and pretty much can't be even be bothered disguising it. The c**t.
I'm shocked there is already a load of people you found using it to begin with.
Part of me wonders whether this will actually drive us back to face to face interactions. AI and "deep fakes" may cause a huge loss of trust in online interaction, and the reaction might be to spur people to avoid it.
Bro, why don't you do more in-class assignments and interviews? It seems to me teachers/professors don't teach as much as research, and regurgitate information. Also often they are part of professional orgs like
What, and have to keep staff instead of foisting their jobs off on dodgy algorithms? MADNESS
I'm afraid the damage is done -- I've been online long enough to see how people behave anonymously so I can't really trust people in real life now. (This is an exaggeration, but I fully do avoid casual conversation these days because people are just so willing to dump their shitty views into the middle of a conversation about the weather or whatever.)
I don't even want to know their non-shitty views, I'm tired of what politeness I can muster up being met with relentless exposition.
My walk to the shop is increasingly fraught, sneaking around like I live in The Quiet Place.
One twig snapping under foot and it's five minutes of how it's "all the bloody migrants fault"... The Terror.
