We should have the tools. I'm not arguing that we should go back to agrarian lifestyles. But somehow we as a society should find a way to not permit wanton waste of resources in the name of cheap, fleeting entertainment.

The issue is that those videos are being created en masse. People would simply not create them in the first place. Making resources so easily available that people waste them without thinking is the reason capitalism has turned our society into a planet destroying machine and called it "quality of life". Nobody's quality of life is improved by the existence of videos of fake cats doing improbable things, yet we've now invested a civilization worth of resources into creating them. It's the broken window fallacy, writ so large that it's unrecognizable.

Problem is people aren't just querying. They're saying "generate a video of a cat riding a shark", which uses a LOT of inference and compute.

But then you would not have learned the value of a 10 second Google search before asking a question with an extremely easy to find answer.

Certainly! Your point raises a crucial, multifaceted issue that merits deeper examination. It's not just about detection accuracy, it's about the evolving interplay between human intention and algorithmic assistance — a dynamic that resists simple binary classification.

When we delve into the mechanics of modern AI tools, it becomes evident that the boundary between "correction" and "generation" is increasingly porous. Consider the following nuances:

Gradual authorship spectra: Text exists on a continuum — from fully human-crafted prose, to human writing with AI-suggested punctuation, to passages where the AI has restructured entire paragraphs. Detection tools, however, often operate on categorical assumptions that fail to capture this complexity.

The feedback loop phenomenon: Furthermore, as writers internalize AI-suggested patterns — Oxford commas, em dashes, and certain syntactic rhythms — their "human" baseline shifts. This creates a fascinating, almost paradoxical scenario: the more one learns from AI feedback, the more one's unassisted writing may trigger detection algorithms.

Contextual markers vs. stylistic choices: Notably, certain signals — like the increased use of "delve," "testament," or negative parallelism — may reflect genuine stylistic evolution rather than automated generation. It's a testament to how AI influences language culture broadly, not just individual documents.

In conclusion, the challenge you identify is not merely technical but philosophical — forcing us to reconsider what we mean by "authentic" voice in an era of human-AI collaboration. The question, ultimately, is not whether a tool assisted in the writing, but whether the ideas, arguments, and intellectual labor remain genuinely human.

I hope proves helpful! Please let me know if you would like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of these findings, or if you would like me to explore the broader implications for content strategy.

a) I don't believe you. You're lying and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind. I live in Australia where I probably drive to a weekend dinner a distance that you call a "road trip". The number of people here who have done 800+km in a day is vanishingly small. 800km is NOT 8 hours. It'll be around 10 at a minimum even if you're on highway the whole time. There's pee stops. There's traffic and animal slow downs. There's leg stretching and snacking. The fact that you think 800km can be done in 8 hours in any setting other than a controlled speed run tells me that you've probably never driven long distance, ever.

b) If you drive 8 hours with your wife in the car without taking any rest stops, then you are both irresponsible adults. Which tracks with the rest of what you say here.

c) Because making car decisions based on something you do once or twice in your lifetime is stupid. Which tracks with the rest of what you're saying here.

d) Can't afford it? Then go on vacation closer. Driving 2% of the Earth's equatorial circumference because you want a vacay is not a fundamental right you spoiled brat. Get your highly educated kids to chip in for a better vehicle, seeing as you raised them so well.

I hurl insults because I feel it's completely justified. And given the string of factual inaccuracies throughout your post, I doubt you specifically raised kids to go into research fields to help the environment. If you had anywhere NEAR that level of prescience and foresight, you would not think along the lines of "I've earned the right to pollute for no good reason".

"do a little research" - you do realize that your post would have had just the same educational value but not made you come across as a jerk if you had just left off that first sentence?

a) 800km in a day is beyond being a rare edge case. The % of the population that has ever done, or will ever do, 800km in a single day would be below 1%.
b) In 800km of driving, you will take more than 45 minutes worth of breaks anyway. You just need to use your brain a little and plan it to stop at a charging station. Although, if you're American, I do understand that brain use is quite the ask.
c) There are now EVs capable of going 800km in a single charge, if you truly are doing 800km in a day with any degree of regularity (which I highly doubt)
d) Even if you do wait a bit more, that small price is worth it for a planet we can live on, you childish, stupid, self-centered, short sighted sack of dumb horseshit.

I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...

EVs are now a direct replacement for ALL consumer use cases. If you need to tow your shitty trailer home from London to Prague twice a week then bad luck. Charging stations are common enough now.

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

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).