There's a post on the Teachers subreddit where a teacher brags that they just gave their entire class a 0% grade for cheating on a paper. The teacher says they fed all of the kids' papers through an AI program called TurnItIn, and the AI confirmed that most of the students' papers had similarities to each other and had AI-generated text. https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/1bwojmm/kids_think_chatgpt_is_going_to_save_them_turnitin/
In the replies, someone said they tested TurnItIn by submitting an estimate paper that they wrote on their own. TurnItIn said the estimate was 94% written by AI. A college student claims that all of their papers were declared 50%â"90% written by AI, except for when they submitted an AI-generated paper as a test and it came back as 25% written by AI.
Whenever someone claims that AI is about to replace a job function, ask for the rate of false positives.
In terms of the philosophy of ethics, officially the definition of evil/wrong is when it would cause you suffering if it was done to you.
I would suffer if I went to prison. Therefore, it is wrong to send anyone to prison.
Except, obviously, if I was actually a murderer, then it would be correct to send me to prison. I feel justified in saying "Murderers should go to prison" because, if my own personal ethics also drop that low, then I also deserve to suffer for my crimes.
If I ever look at the evidence that the vast, vast majority of COVID deaths are from unvaccinated people, and the breakthrough cases in vaccinated people have much lower consequences than for the unvaccinated, and I go around the internet loudly proclaiming that the vaccines are a hoax and we should just take Viagra instead, then yes, my ethics would be awful, and I would be intentionally contributing to the suffering of others, and you would have the right to laugh at my death.
I'm sure that there's a deeper ethical discussion about how to decide whose ethics are actually laughably bad, but I have no problem with saying that it would be correct to apply this same medicine back to me if I were so awful as to put myself in that same position.
That's my real worry with bootcamps and alternative education. I don't doubt that you can learn a skill at these camps. Hell, you could learn a skill by picking up a textbook and just teaching yourself in your free time. I've honestly considered quitting my job and hitting a bootcamp to change careers.
But my question is, am I going to get hired with just a bootcamp on my resume? Is this a problem with the inadequate alternative schools? Or is this a case of strict hiring practices that won't hire trainable entry-level employees unless they have a four-year degree on their resumes?
When involuntary unemployment exists, the marginal disutility of labour is necessarily less than the utility of the marginal product. Indeed it may be much less. For a man who has been long unemployed some measure of labour, instead of involving disutility, may have a positive utility. If this is accepted, the above reasoning shows how 'wasteful' loan expenditure may nevertheless enrich the community on balance. Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better.
It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly 'wasteful' forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict 'business' principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground known as gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most acceptable of all solutions.
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.
I'm old enough to remember when libertarians used to talk shit at Keynes for this quote. How dare the government waste money on digging holes just to give people jobs. And now we've got a true self-made entrepreneur demanding his right to spend natural gas on meaningless tokens, because think of the jobs.
To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire