If I write an article based on a giant e-book that I didn't read, and merely pulled out quotes an AI helped identify for me, then how am I supposed to know what context those quotes were provided in? Your suggestion to do a search and check the quotes does nothing to solve the problem that I have not read the book. It only functions to solve the problem of "I need to make it appear as if I have read the book."

If I had read the book, I could just use that basic search function to find the quotes to begin with (since I would know what I'm looking for), and since I would have to check the AI using that same search function, no time is saved, extra work has just been added.

The problem is in cases like this where "oversight" would have taken just as much time as not using the AI to begin with.

A lot of coders can save time with AI because oftentimes "checking the work" means running a function. You test it the same way you would had you written it yourself.

But with writing, "checking the work" means doing the research that you were trying to avoid by using an AI. In the example from the article, he tried to use the AI to extract and organize quotes. If he had used the AI to do that and then double checked that everything was extracted correctly, would any time or effort have been saved? For the same reasons, math teachers can grade their students' work much faster than English teachers, and hence they can provide students with many more graded assignments.

The people peddling AI have no interest in distinguishing between when it can usefully solve a problem and when it cannot. They pitch it as the solution to everything.

I got through two sentences before realizing you did not write any of this and it was probably chat bot drivel. Way to take up a bunch of space and contribute nothing to the conversation. LLMs have opened up new avenues for you to be an annoying troll.

How about you show us data that demonstrates that a lower percentage of students are attending college? That might support your argument.

You claim that high tuition is the real culprit here but you failed to support that claim in any meaningful way.

They are certainly posting a lot of slashdot.

Sounds like you have the Popular Mechanics formula down. When can you start?

Land is one of the most important forms of capital. There is a finite supply of land.

I do not think the OP was disputing that. It seems like they were just warning other readers that the Meta servers have unreasonable or undesirable rules.

Code.org is just an industry advocacy group and lobbyist. Their actions demonstrate that their mission is to make money for tech companies, so they should have their nonprofit status revoked. They're basically just an industry marketing effort.

What you are suggesting is a law. The executive branch does not have that power.

It goes to show why you Trump idiots never see anything wrong with what he does. You do not understand basic civics.

Your post demonstrates that you understand what the author meant, but then you continue to criticize him for failing to be inefficiently and unnecessarily pedantic with his words.

Think about that.

There is no income limit for the parents who claim these but there are restrictions on what it can be withdrawn for. Those restrictionsâ"education, starting a business, etc.â"coupled with how this will be claimed, means that it will mostly be used by the wealthy.

This is literally welfare for rich people.

What about slashdot?

Maybe I should make a post complaining about the quality of a site completely unrelated to GitHub or anything else in the featured article. I could use the same tenuous relationship to the topic at hand that you did.

It sounds like, as with most AI schemes, this is just a scam. It follows the same pattern as other AI scams. Find an extremely difficult problem, claim you will fix it with AI, ask for money. It is the standard nonprofit scam with AI bolted on to it.

It shouldnâ(TM)t really be surprising that the compulsive liar was lying.