You as an individual may be ok, but I'm thinking more collectively as a society that we're going be screwed. Your point that "I'm being forced to herd a growing flock of ChatGPT-dependent morons." is what I meant, the next generation of IT staff/programmers/engineers might be these 'ChatGPT-dependent morons' responsible for software and systems down the road. It's terrifying.

Another reason to use other options like duckduckgo, or other browsers (I still like Firefox even with its missteps).

The big problem with this too is that you reinforce echo chambers using your history, which isn't really a good thing, getting a range of perspectives even in search / AI results helps mitigate exaggerated beliefs or viewpoints (e.g. 'x is everywhere', 'y is always happening', 'everyone believes z')

I also wonder how long it will be 'opt-in' until they make it the default and you have to 'opt-out'

Total clusterfuck of an idea imo...

This kind of short-sightedness will cost us. Some companies just want -- 'poof', magically experienced programmers/engineers and want 'someone else' to give them entry-level work to get them to mid-senior level. They don't want skilled and they don't want to pay/invest. Same reason company loyalty died a while back, no one wants to invest in their younger employees, and they also try to force out the most senior (e.g. expensive high-salaried) ones.

Between this, and now many young programmers/college students becoming so dependent on AI that they don't have actual knowledge (other than what they can look up), I think we're going to gave a massive skill gap in the next few years. Too many 'programmers' who won't actually know how to build and fix complex systems. More black boxes that no one understands...

I saw a funny comment here on another article, saying the best job security now is cybersecurity since there's going to be so much shit code and security holes out there that needs to be addressed and protected against -- it's pretty much guaranteed work.

Fine, but the companies using/building/employing these tools are still culpable and should 100% be held responsible for any bad outcomes (e.g. suicide) that result from their 'services' (I use the term loosely).

People build these tools, which means they trained them, or hired someone to train them -- in either case, they are responsible for the data used in the training as well as the end result and the product. Don't give them an easy out.

As long as they have 'engagement' they don't give a shit what slop they're feeding you. I still use Facebook periodically (don't judge me! older family members still use it to keep in touch), and I've noticed the amount of shitty AI content on the feeds, suggestions, etc., has exploded in the last couple of months -- fake animals, fake people, fake incidents, etc. I use some extensions/add-ons to mitigate/block the worst of it, but it's still so much shit. Dead Internet indeed.

FB/Meta could undoubtedly do something if they wanted given their resources, but they don't care as long as people are on the platform, if they say otherwise, they're lying... shocking I know!

We use Discord for our D&D club (we're spread out), I can't see any of us being willing to give up that kind of information/privacy for Discord, we'll just use something else.

I've meet some crazy smart people from Harvard, average folks, and some that I was not impressed by.

I think that the varsity blues scandal and other recent admission policies that has come to light, showed concretely that some people sneak into place like Harvard and are NOT the cream of the crop, just wealthy and/or connected.

You are confusing The College Board for actual universities and colleges.

The College Board is a non-profit (questionable) that administers APs, ACTS, PSAT, SAT -- they don't run ANY schools nor define college/univ curriculum

As more and more schools, including elite private schools which are often Ivy feeders -- drop AP courses from their curriculum, The College Board is just trying to stay relevant and justify its existence and keep revenue streams.

They've been adding more non-college level course to their AP curriculum, which is odd since they whole point of Advanced Placement originally was to offer courses supposedly equal to 1/2 or maybe 1 year college level 100 courses typically.

I'm a teacher with 20 years in industry prior, and taught AP CS A (the Java based course). Few years ago they added, AP CS Principles, it's is a joke, you can literally teach the course in Scratch, yes, drag and drop block coding, enough said. The curriculum is level the of what my schools taught for MS.

Both the schools I've taught at dropped APs in favor of their own Honors courses. It allows more flexibility, and including more relevant material. AP CS A for example doesn't include any basic I/O, kind of important . While I'd say maybe about 3/4 of the content is good, there's definitely stuff they could drop in favor of more used/useful concepts. They also overemphasize certain things imo.

I think the College Board has 'diluted their brand' for a while, and now more and more schools are not giving credit, or only giving credit for a 5. Or, they might give you general grad requirement credits, but not departmental credit, meaning AP CS A might give you so a few units, but schools won't let you skip out of intro/100 level.

Which is my point. Harvard is failing in its mission as a high ed institution, 2000 kids a year is not enough -- it's NOT meant to be a fucking luxury brand worrying about dilution.

While their cost is certainly an issue, one of the biggest problems in higher ed (esp among so-called elite schools) if the stagnant enrollment size. The purpose of higher ed SHOULD be to educate as many eligible people as possible (notice I said eligible I don't mean let in people not meeting the standards), but schools like Harvard LOVE their low acceptance rate and 'elite' status, so they won't do it.

The US population has grown a lot since the 80s, but universities and college haven't kept up. Harvard has a massive fucking endowment, they could expand their offerings and enrollment if they chose to invest. They enroll a measley 2000 freshmen a year, how about adding 100 every year?

"That would be like a scholar only reading things out of copyright"

If that scholar uses that work for their own research or paper, they have to credit or cite it -- HUGE difference than what's happening with LLM training, it's not in any way comparable.

AI companies are making serious money using prior works to build their models, with no compensation or even credit/acknowledgement to those who actually generated the content or data.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

THAT is all the more reason I'm glad whatever those games were are dead.

I like games "designed to..." be fun, interesting, engaging, entertaining, thought-provoking, etc. When the design centers around monetization and that kind of mindset, I say a big 'fuck you', glad the projects are dead. There enough of that shit already.

I think a lot the supposed 'crash' in the industry can be blamed on whoever is making the design decisions, be they 'leadership', bean counters, or the programmers -- because many of us gamers remember when nerds were the ones who designed games they thought would be fun and want to play themselves -- not execs who want to just to suck every fucking penny they can out of people.