For ages, we have had thermostats to tell us the ambient room temperature, and to adjust HVAC settings accordingly. And more recently, they've gone smart--letting us see and control it automatically, or manually with a smartphone interface.

Why not also have this technology for measuring CO2? The sensors are not expensive, they don't need a lot of power, and they are low maintenance. CO2 is a reasonably good proxy for indoor air quality with respect to environments occupied by humans. And you don't need to modify the existing architecture or install ductwork.

Yes, very much so. Sometimes it is hard, but the better the rapport you build with the students, the better it works. Talking to them in breaks helps. Showing the occasional weakness helps. If some student know something relevant better than you, let them talk for a few minutes. Of course, some students want the degree, but not do the work (which is really stupid, but it happens) and that is why I have stopped teaching mandatory subjects. If you do not really want to be in my lecture, I do not want you to be there either.

I thought there was an explanation that Theia formed in the same orbit as Earth, each at a Trojan point with the other. This is unstable and eventually they crashed into each other. Is this now considered impossible?

What kind of a nonsense posting is that? Stop projecting and read what I actually wrote.

That would require that there are no more and no less than the materials required in existence. The problem students face is not lack of materials. The problem is they are faced with vastly more materials than they need and most do not yet have the skills to competently make a selection and structure structure what they selected.

Other than that, I agree with your statement.

Indeed. Also reminds me of a certain "stable genius".

I know how to use this stuff: Stay away from it, it adds nothing and wastes my time. Oh, I have one use: I currently have a student evaluate the major coding assistant and some general LLMs on how good they can judge code security. The results so far are that they work well for toy examples and not well or not at all for real situations. This may eventually get me a nice publication.

While I do not completely agree, the idea has merit.

It's the only quote I ever use about AI.

As soon as I realise an article, or an image or whatever is AI generated, I just stop and go elsewhere, and often just block that channel/page/site/user.

At this point, it's openly discriminatory as a policy, as far as I'm concerned. This was AI - NOT YOU - making this and I'm not interested in the output of an AI. If I were, I'd just go onto an AI and have it make that, rather than pick it up from some other third-hand place that reposted it.

The irony of "social" media being almost nothing but AI nowadays is so laughable. Facebook was there for me to talk to my friends and family, see how my old school friends were doing, etc. etc. etc. and after becoming just a bunch of curated junk it turned to shit and I basically stopped bothering. And now it's just AI and reposts because everyone else stopped bothering to post too.

I come to Slashdot, for example, not for the articles. They're just there to promote discussion. I come to interact with people and read what people think.

Why would he feel inadequate when, according to a trustworthy source, he's a better boxer than Mike Tyson, fitter than LeBron James, hotter than Tom Brady, one of the top minds in history with a near-Olympian physique, the world's best runway model, better at resurrection than Jesus, the world's best bottom (ahem) (cough) and the ultimate throat goat?

Sooner or later, we'll end up at the point where trying to maintain the ways of the past is a fruitless fight. Teachers' jobs are no longer going to be "to teach" - that that's inevitably getting taken over by AI (for economic reasons, but also because it's a one-on-one interaction with the student, with them having no fear of asking questions, and that at least at a pre-university level, it probably knows the material a lot better than the average teacher, who these days is often an ignorant gym coach or whatnot). Their jobs will be *to evaluate frequently* (how well does the student know things when they don't have access to AI tools?). The future of teachers - nostalgia aside - is as daily exam administrators, to make sure that students are actually doing their studies. Even if said exams were written by and will be graded by AI.

Fascinating. This is even worse than I thought. For this, there should be ample correct data in the training data set. But it still cannot do it. Well.

The reason scams like this are illegal is because there is always plenty of pople who believe this crap against all rationality. If regular people were able to fact-check, scammers would die out.