Yes, absolutely. But I still think it has its dangers.
Using it to write the introduction doesn't change the substance of the paper, yet it does provide the framework for how the reader interprets it, and also often decides whether it'll be read at all.
Maybe worse, I find that it's oftem in the painful writing and rewriting of the introduction and conclusion that I truly understand my own contribution - I've done the analysis and all that, but in forcing myself to think about the relevance for the field and the reader I also bring myself to better understand what the paper means in a deeper sense. I believe this kind of deep thinking at the end of the process is incredibly valuable, and it's what I'm afraid we might be losing with AI.
Publishing houses who control the entire industry and whom you have to go through because they have the professional networks and publishing somewhere without "prestige" is literally worse than not publishing at all.
This is the key - it does not create, it can only copy. Which is good enough to fool us - there's enough stuff to copy out there that you can spend your whole life copying other people and nobody will ever notice you're not actually creating anything new. What's more, you'll probably come across as pretty clever. But you're not creating anything new.
For me, this poses an existential threat to academia. It might halt development in the field without researchers even noticing: Their words look fine, as if they had thought it through, and they of course read it to make sure it's logically consistent. However, the creative force is gone. Nothing new will come under the sun - the kind of new thoughts that can only be made by creative humans thinking new thoughts that have never been put on paper before.
If we give up that, what's even the point of doing science in the first place.
One important thing is that you have potential. ChatGDP will write something alright-ish, but it's literally impossible for it to move beyond that. It doesn't have the power of creativity.
Writing is painful, but it also helps us think clearer about our work and contribution. I think it's an important part of the process of doing science, no matter which field. And one gets better at it with training.
Of course it's more expensive than other phones with similar specifications.
The main point here isn't to be fair to consumers by allowing them to repair their phones and giving them upgrades. The main point is to create a phone that is paying living wages to those producing it, and uses as many recycled minerals as possible and seeks to not be an absolute disaster for the planet.
If people stopped a while to wonder why their smaprtphoens are so goddamn cheap, I think people would be lining up to pay more for them. It's not even remotely sustainable.
The second capitalists gather together they are bound to conspire to fuck over ordinary folks.
That's not Marx - that's literally Adam Smith, the guy who hypothesized the invisible hand of the market that has since been turned into a complete strawman leading people to believe capitalism will somehow fix itself.
Well, in theory social media platforms could be good. The idea is solid - you follow trustworthy people, they post valuable information, you see it.
I think for example journa.host is an interesting experiment in making social media actually valuable - everyone there is a confirmed journalist of some sort.
Of course, it can never be perfect. But it allows for greater variety of content: I often find myself reading just two or three newspapers regularly, and in the end social media posts are useful supplement that gives me stories I might not otherwise see elsewhere. That said, I have a pretty strictly curated Mastodon feed.
This is literally the definition of a liberal market economy. Bust unions and make it easy to hire and fire, and what you'll get is a highly mobile and vibrant but unspecialised workforce. Great for quick innovation like silicon valley, less great for traditional manufacturing that requires specialized talents.
It's all wanted politics - maybe more than anything, this is what they busted the unions for.
While the meme is in bad taste by my standards, I guess it's still not in the same league as forcing women to carry babies and then shooting them dead when they're trying to feed them.
An absolutely essential part of police work is to de-escalate situations. If someone is acting erratically and pose a potential danger they're supposed to be trained to calm them down, control the situation, and get it under control with minimal use of force. In America the work of the police is, to be fair, made harder by the fact that firearms are everywhere - situations can escalate very quickly.
However, if what starts as a pregnant lady shoplifting ends with you shooting her dead, chances are you did not do a very good job de-escalating the situation. Rather on the contrary - you escalated it a whole fucking lot.
This has nothing to do with any functional notion of police work. This is just state sponsored terror.
While Gecko should absolutely be made available for iPhone, it's worth noting there's nothing wrong with WebKit per se. It's open source (forked from KHTML), servers as the base for among others the GNOME Web browser, and is not a monopoly player (outside of iPhones).
In some messed up way, Apple's WebKit insistance has helped competition in the browser market by making sure there's at least one popular platform where Blink is not dominating...
sab @ sab @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 683Joined 2 yr. ago
Yes, absolutely. But I still think it has its dangers.
Using it to write the introduction doesn't change the substance of the paper, yet it does provide the framework for how the reader interprets it, and also often decides whether it'll be read at all.
Maybe worse, I find that it's oftem in the painful writing and rewriting of the introduction and conclusion that I truly understand my own contribution - I've done the analysis and all that, but in forcing myself to think about the relevance for the field and the reader I also bring myself to better understand what the paper means in a deeper sense. I believe this kind of deep thinking at the end of the process is incredibly valuable, and it's what I'm afraid we might be losing with AI.