As someone with an actual visual impairment, please do not attempt to use my affliction to justify generalized use of AI. Educational assistance for those with disabilities is not a new thing; AI is likely going to have a role but how remains exactly to be seen.
As someone who myself is legally blind, I am in no way justifying the use of AI like this. I was responding to the entire "let's all go back to actual paper-based tests/assignments" trope that was being trotted out on here. Sure, it (might) work, but it also disadvantages people like us, since most teachers can't read braille (at least, none of mine could).
> "Knowledge retention skills? Knowledge correlations or knowledge expression skills? None of these going to be useful or required from humans."
I'm fascinated by these claims from some LLM advocates that people will no longer need to know things, think, or express themselves properly. What value then will such individuals bring to the table to justify their pay? Will they be like Sigourney Weaver's character in Galaxy Quest whose sole function was to repeat what the computer says verbatim? Will they be like Tom Smykowski in Office Space indignantly saying "I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that?!" Somebody, please explain.
[EDIT] The other funny aspect about these claims is, given that such an individual's skills are mainly in using an AI, that they can simply be outspent by their peers on AI usage. "Wally got the job instead of me because he paid for a premium LLM to massage his application and I could only afford the basic one because I'm short on money."
Should I, by some miracle, be hiring, I'd be hiring those who come out of college with a solid education. As many have pointed out, AI is not immune to the "garbage in, garbage out" principle and it's education that enables the user to ask informed and precisely worded questions to the AI to get usable output instead of slop.
Is that common? I've never worked at a corporation that had an EPP for EoL computer equipment. It always all went to a specialist recycling/refurbishing business.
I don't know about "common", but at one place, when they were retiring my machine, I asked if I could buy it, and they agreed. (Of course, for that to work, you have to be there long enough that they replace your machine...)
FOSS was imagined as a brotherhood of hackers, sharing code back and forth to build a utopian code commons that provided freedom to build anything. It stayed firmly in the realm of the imaginary because, in the real world, everybody wants somebody else to foot the bill or do the work. Corporations stepped up once they figured out how to profit off of FOSS and everyone else was content to free ride off of the output because it meant they didn't have to lift a finger. The people who actually do the work are naturally in the driver's seat.
This perspective is astonishingly historically ignorant, and ignores how "Open Source Software" was a deliberate political movement to simultaneously neuter the non-company-friendly goals of FOSS while simultaneously providing a competing (and politically distracting) movement that deliberately courted companies.
The Free Software movement was successful enough that by 1997 it was garnering a lot of international community support and manpower. Eric S. Raymond published CatB in response to these successes, partly with a goal of "celebrating its successes" — sendmail, gcc, perl, and Linux were all popular projects with a huge number of collaborators by this point — and partly with a goal of reframing the Free Software movement such that it effectively neuters the political basis (i.e. the four freedoms, etc.) in a company-friendly way. It's very easy to note when reading the book, how it consistently celebrates the successes of Free Software in a company friendly way, deliberately to make it appealing to companies. Often being very explicit about its goals, e.g. "Don't give your workers good bonuses, because research shows that the better a ''hacker'' the less they care about money!".
A year later, internal memos from Microsoft leaked that showed that management were indeed scared shitless about Linux, a movement that they could neither completely Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, nor practice Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on, because the community that built it were too strong, and too dedicated. Management foresaw that it was only a matter until Linux was a very strong competitor — even if that's taken 20 years, they were decently accurate in their fears, and, to be honest, part of why it's taken 30 years for Linux to catch up are deliberate actions by Microsoft wrt. introducing and adopting technologies that would stymie the Free Software movement from being able to adapt.
Sorry, I beg to differ. A pourover is quick and easy if you wing it on the measurements, timing, etc. As long as the beans are decent and freshly ground, the result is still miles better than the cheap stuff even when I flub the temperature or timing.
Yeah, I do drink cheap coffee but only to remind me what decent coffee isn't.
reply