If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless. -- Erwin Schrödinger

I agree, using an AI editor is very much like using a human editor. As long as the AI doesn't alter your message, or make major contributions, it is acting as a critical reader who offers good-faith improvements to your message from a different perspective. Just like a human editor.

Stephen Hawking was annoyed once with an editor who made an enormous number of suggestions for changing one of his manuscripts. He reflected and realized that the editor was absolutely correct, and adopted pretty much all of his suggestions. The result was a better book.

The point is that review by a human or an AI can improve what we write, so that other humans can make more sense of it. And maybe other AIs?

We could address your question if the premise were true. Unfortunately it isn't. She was not just a math teacher, but a university professor. And per TFS, she did not "use AI to write a paper." She used AI to help edit a paper in which she and others invested hundreds of person-hours of effort. She did not just press a button to create the op-ed.

It has already been studied and accomplished. Too many studies to name here, but for example, in 1997 a Massachusetts researcher succeeded at converting zip code, birth date, and gender info from voter-registration lists, into links to someone's medical records.

When we got solar for our house, we thought for awhile about getting batteries and decided it was not worth the cost. They're expensive, and only last 10 to 15 years. We decided instead to draw from the grid during the night, and feed the grid during the day. It has worked out remarkably well.

I think this is the only battery that makes sense. Instead of having it bolted to your house, you can drive it around. And at night, it can power your house.

I'm posting this reluctantly because I have read several of your posts in this thread and generally find myself in agreement with you. However, I do have some thoughts I'd like to share.

True, but they have deprived society of a venerable art-object. Something that embodies the epoch of Tolkein's stories. The owner certainly can do what s/he wants with it, but I think we should pause before destroying something like that.

And that brings me to a quandary: if this is a rare book that has not been copied, then is it important to preserve? I assume it was not copied because others in the past did not see it as important to preserve, so why should we be concerned? It could be as others have suggested here -- something that was analogous to the owner's manual for a Ford Pinto.

It could also be that people in the past were ignorant of the value of the book in a historical context, and only in the present day do we see its importance. Like I said, I see a quandary here. Just because it's rare doesn't necessarily mean it's valuable, either for its contents, or for its physical form. Nor does it mean we can dispose of it without reflecting first.

This. And please note (fortfive and Tiberius2019) that it's standing on shoulders, not backs, that is the canonical metaphor. Standing on backs makes it sound oppressive.

While we're talking history, let's remember where the metaphor comes from. It first appeared in the 12th century, but became popular when Isaac Newton used it. And he probably used it sarcastically, as an insult to his arch-rival Robert Hooke, who walked hunched-over because he suffered from curvature of the spine, and thus appeared short. Newton was a great physicist, but he was also an awful human being.

I would define a "DEI hire" as a hire in which DEI figured prominently in the decision to hire, perhaps to the point of overlooking the lack of some non-crucial qualifications in the candidate, compared to other candidates. (It does not mean it's okay to hire a plagiarist.)

And as I pointed out (per the Guardian article) Cambridge has not had a history of showing DEI to be a priority in hiring. Based on that observation, I have support for the opinion that it was not a factor in Arday's hiring.

In Arday's case, he appeared to have been hired on his merits, as they were perceived (and attested to) when he joined Cambridge. Now it appears Cambridge did not apply due diligence when they evaluated him for the position. Bad on both of them, but it seems Arday is the only one being beat up here.

Well yes, quite possibly. But that doesn't mean he was a "DEI hire." Nor was he the first Cambridge professor to commit plagiarism. Or even the worst case. He was just the youngest black faculty member to have apparently done so, and the media response was way out of proportion to other cases. This article is heavy on opinion, but offers some interesting insights.

The rest of your post does not merit a response.

Thank you. That's definitely a valid point.

I'm not trying to argue that China's space program is safer than the USA's, nor is the risk of their missions comparable to those the USA has undertaken. I'm saying they haven't lost anyone in space or on the ground, whereas the USA has.

Here are some updated numbers, after refining my search-phrases:

- China has a total of 41 person-flights into space, by about 30 taikonauts.
- the USA has a total of 914 person-flights into space, by 372 astronauts.

Now, instead of rhetorically asking whether you "have to" list the reasons why my comparisons aren't "fair" (which I never claimed they were) kindly supply those reasons.

Not saying you're wrong, but note that China has lost zero taikonauts out of a total of 46 in 16 flights. Whereas the USA has lost 17 astronauts out of a total of 400 (Challenger and Columbia flights, and Apollo 1 ground-test.)

I'm amazed that I need to point this out to you, but once you marry, you're no longer a bachelor.

In short, you can't be married and a bachelor at the same time. And an LLM would say so. That was the point.

That's the icon for Twitter (now X.)

You're thinking of this icon.

Both Truth Social and Bluesky have "community guidelines" that prohibit speech about violence, unlawful activity, and other things. There are some differences, but the point is that both platforms have rules about what you can and can't say.

However, Truth Social has a centralized enforcement structure run by the company, whereas Bluesky has a decentralized moderation structure administered by the individual users and third-party agents.

In short, users on Bluesky could be "dogpiled" and made to feel unwelcome, but their accounts aren't removed. (If you want an example of that kind of treatment, look at Slashdot.) Whereas the company administering Truth Social removes accounts and bans users who say things about Trump they don't like.

I would think LLMs can tell when instructions don't make sense. Conflicting instructions are an example.

Try asking an LLM "how do I become a married bachelor" and see what happens.