The problem (and unfairness) is the modus. Instead have people come to a room, have them stay in there for 4-6h without Internet and use only provided computers and materials and produce that essay. Or do what some universtities in Europe do: Talk to the prospective applicants for an hour each. Yes, that takes a lot of time and effort. But teaching peopel that do not belong there costs more time and effort.
Agree. Before COVID, we had in-room closed book tests. During COVID, we moved to oral exams. We still do oral exams. It takes more time, but it is more effective.
The whole argument that the affluent have an advantage
should be
The whole argument that the affluent don't have an advantage
Can you imagine being a child or teenager in 2025? WTF have we done.
Yes I can imagine. I have taught for over 20 years. The youth of today are good and strong. They are the ones who will define what our current era means.
I can't say I agreed with the man on every topic but he was clearly someone that spoke for human rights. We need people like him. While he didn't command a large military the office of the Pope carries weight in the world.
+1
Amen
They may be excellent wordsmiths,
No.
Agree on both. But we may compromise on "adequate grammar correctors." My non-native English speaking colleagues feel they help.
It's like wikipedia. In a mission-critical sense it's not 100% reliable. However for 99.8% of real world use cases, it's totally fine.
That is vastly overestimating the reliability of chatGPT, and Gemeni is even worse.
IME, both statements are true. The real world use case is proofreading English language for non-native English speakers.
Thus far, the one use-case I've seen that they're actually good at is "executive summary" reports.
I'm in the 50% that have never tried an LLM. Many of my colleagues use them regularly for proofreading.
I'm tempted by automated meeting summary/minutes. But until the security and privacy issues are addressed, no thank you.
He should be posting his dysfunction to TikTok like a normal crazy person.
I'm SO glad that when I read that I didn't have a mouthful of the soda I'm currently drinking...
LOL, @bill_mcgonigle delivers!
Mod up, a good question. My best understanding is that the answer is "yes, but no."
In my state, Massachusetts, a web search indicates the liability limit for taxis is the same as the liability for the general public which is $20k/$40k [1]. These are limits on hospital expenses, not a limit on civil damages. You would need additional insurance for that. But anyway, each taxi is a separate corporation, run by the taxi driver. Similar to Uber or Lyft model. The drivers don't have the money to defend or pay a serious 1+ million dollar lawsuit, so victims don't have much recourse.
At least that is my understanding. Please let me know.
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer