That is not what they found. What they found is that if you spend 60 minutes doing the homework with AI, you learn approximately as much as someone who spends 60 minutes doing it without AI. If you spend 20 minutes doing it with AI, you learn as much as someone who spends 20 minutes doing it without AI. Etc. The only real difference is that the AI people get way better homework scores, and as a result, tend to stop spending as much time, and thus tend to learn less.

That's what this preprint study found.

100% this. Even a short 5-minute quiz with just a couple questions at the start of each day will do the trick. But you simply can't rely on homework scores to be a proxy of learning or time spent studying anymore. Brief daily quizzes on the previous day's material will force them to.

Also, It's not like students have the excuse of, "I couldn't study, I didn't have anyone to explain X to me" anymore. The very AI that they might otherwise use to cheat on their homework can also explain to them the things they missed in last year's algebra class that are blocking them from learning this year's calculus, or whatnot. Congrats - you now have an infinitely patient personal tutor who will spend hours dumbing things down for you until you get it. Now you have no excuse - learn the material. It becomes all about actually putting the time in.

Yeah. There's been widespread misrepresentation of this (preprint!) in the media. What they actually found: test scores correspond to how much time you spend doing homework, regardless of whether you use AI or not. Which should not be a surprising result! Of course, the AI people, esp. those who had been using AI for more than a few months, stopped spending much time on their homework, and then their test scores fell to match the non-AI users who didn't spend much time in their homework either.

The TL/DR is, in today's age, you cannot use test scores as a proxy of how much time a user is studying or knows the material.

There are of course some caveats, beyond the fact that it's just a preprint - notably that there's nothing to separate why the user started using AI to do their homework, so there's potential confounders in there. For example, if a student is in a poor family, maybe they had to get a job to help pay the bills. But working a job itself can lower test scores - for example, having to work late the night before an exam. So there are some confounder problems with the study. That said, I'm sure the general conclusion is correct: time spent doing the thing = amount of learning the thing (relatively independent of what tools you're using in the process).

Most of the developed world has lower homicide rates than the US, and has had for a long time.

Lol. You're just determined the world is ending hey?

Right. Those are some of the hot topics in lunar science. So if someone lands a couple of rovers there with a bunch of cameras, penetrating radar, spectrometers, etc. finds water, and analyzes it, they'll be at the forefront of lunar science.

We already know that there is water in permanently shadowed craters near the lunar poles. This has been well-proven by multiple missions, including the LCROSS mission that actually impacted the pole.

What we don't know is what the physical state is. Sheets of ice? Ice-coated grains of regolith? Deeply hydrated minerals? Fluffy snow? Layers of dust alternating with rock-like layers of minerals cemented together with cryogenic ice?

The ISP here gives you one when you sign up for fibre service.

There are lots of roads too.

My mother lives in a place that is probably more remote (as in distance to the nearest city > 100,000) than it's possible to get in the US outside of Alaska. Twenty years ago when they were paving the highway they also dug a trench and dropped fibre into it. The initial idea was to hook up schools and government buildings but a local started a company and just ran fibre to everyone's house, including the farmers'. They're cheaper and way more reliable than the only competitor (DSL) so pretty much everyone has 1 gig symmetric connections with the option for 2.5.

POTS and a modem should be enough for anyone. And none of that fancy 56k shit either, good old 14.4 kb/s.

With a radiator.

Data centres in space are a terrible idea because they come down after about five years. Maybe you don't care so much about your old video cards burning up, but your power station does too.

why is nobody stepping up to make more supply?

They arent'?

https://www.fool.com/investing...

https://www.pcmag.com/news/mic...

https://apnews.com/article/kor...

Okay.

https://www.frontiersin.org/jo...

Could you have said "I like my fairphone" without the put downs straight out of a highschool movie? Yes you could have.

The packaging isn't that difficult. Small bioreactors are a thing, and are generally easier to build than big ones. You can e-mail a sequence to a manufacturer and get a vial of lipid encapsulated mRNA right now for high hundreds or single digit thousands of dollars, depending on the length of the sequence.