It was bad enough with parents and tutors writing essays for kids, now we have this. And if you have read up on how US teachers have been doing/feeling over the past few years, giving us another obstacle to "adapt to" will just push even more people out of the field. I know history and English teachers that already have students do all of their written work at school to try to cut down on the cheating, which means less material can get covered in class time. It's not the end of the world, but it is another rung down on the ladder.

Invoking this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

...and in turn, hilarity/tragedy ensues.

This is all theoretical. Time isn't even physical. Straight line curvature is a physical concept.

I believe it is relevant, because of this:

>> I mean, if someone is a murderous nazi and you're a POC I think it's perfectly OK to write off the nazi as "evil" because he wants to commit horrific actions, like murder against you.

Humans have well demonstrated that they use the word "is" in ways that are contrary to its technical meaning.

For example:

> "People on the internet" is an irrelevant red herring and [is] completely unrelated to my point.

Here you are describing how this appears to you, seemingly unaware that it may appear otherwise to other people, and that how it appears may be different than how it actually is.

[removed]

"People on the internet" is an irrelevant red herring and completely unrelated to my point.

As someone who has never read Plato or similar works, where would I get started? It seems so daunting and intimidating.

Ngl, the only thing that gave that away for me is the essay-like “overall” in a Reddit post. Otherwise, you had me fooled

> Its also tempting for people that does not understand the subject they are applying it to.

Oof. Bidding a contract from an actuaries view of risk and relevant parameters, against a financial industry sales team low ball bid. The long-term goes kaboom and everyone laments no one could see that coming.

The value in skill-stacking is the ability to see more parameters in your analysis. You can have equal credentials in your field as all of the other highly qualified candidates. The candidate who has a complimentary skill or two in their back pocket can see around corners the others can't. Useful understanding for personal development, and recruiting high-function teams.

This was an interesting read. The fact that education has survived google tells me that teachers will adapt to an essay generator bot. This is definitely a better read about recent developments than some of the hair on fire rhetoric I’ve read lately.

Same since fire

Using AI to write essays or complete assignments has the potential to undermine the educational process. It's important for students to develop their own writing skills and demonstrate their understanding of the material. While using AI may save time, it does not provide the opportunity for students to learn and grow as writers and critical thinkers.

Additionally, relying on AI to complete assignments can lead to a lack of original thought and creativity. It is important for students to be able to express their own ideas and perspectives in their work, rather than simply regurgitating information that they have obtained from an AI.

Furthermore, while AI may be able to produce coherent text, it may not fully understand the context or meaning of the words it is using. This can result in the production of nonsensical or factually incorrect information, which could be detrimental to the student's grades and overall learning experience.

Overall, while AI may be able to assist with certain aspects of writing, it is not a replacement for the hard work and critical thinking that is required to produce high quality academic work.

-- written by chatGPT

Its not even a practical nailgun its an impractical one with a heavy V12 engine that needs specialized skills to wield without taking of a leg or killing your neighbors.

Its also tempting for people that does not understand the subject they are applying it to.

You should go check out chat gp. It is leaps and bounds beyond anything I have seen before. Honestly I'm blown away by the natural sound and well reasoned thinking it shows.

Almost nothing, if anything at all, is inherently subjective. Morals are standards that are typically arbitrary, but when you focus on the subjective judgment that results in a thing being labeled as "evil," you're missing the point of doing such a thing in the first place. Some morals are just plain stupid, like the idea that sex is evil but reproduction is not. Calling such a code "subjective" is unwarranted validation.

hamhazeled again!

Everything is on a spectrum, but without categorizing life would become impossibly confusing. I like to think of color for example, there’s really only one specific true blue color, there are a bunch of different types of blue, light shades, dark shades, some mixed in with other colors, however at the end of the day everyone still calls it blue. It may not be fully accurate, specific shades may have their own identities which again may not fully match, some may just barely be blue, but its helpful because without calling it blue you would need a Phd to know what each minute color is.

Look at cutting edge attitudes on gender, the entire thing is an absolute mess, filled with genders that most don’t even know exists, and insistence on people respecting them, and even some wanting to get rid of the concept of gender entirely.

If you were to ask me, I’d argue to keep the binary gender in place, but stop doing the thing people do where they start assigning a million different traits to it. Stop saying “a true man must act like” or “a proper lady does”, and just accept that like a color spectrum, every person is just slightly different, and may not do the things the way you do them, and as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, that’s ok. And that goes for most binaries we have.

ChatGPT does everything current technology does for us, faster.

You can use technology to learn anything. Turn it into a useful tool to produce things you already understood 10x faster. With guidance from ChatGPT cut down on time spent looking up information you already more or less know, and can spot-check easily. Learning a new thing is a process of practice, and fast feedback loops. ChatGPT can be used to speed up your feedback loops checking your work to speed up repetition. You can learn programming languages faster by getting repetitions in 10x faster when playing with personal projects, shaves off the time burn digging through forums to debug issues.

You may have noticed a limitation in technology is the more specialized knowledge the less available resources. Purchase a production line piece of equipment for your home business, you can find nothing about it online. Have to rely on finding rare printed documentation from other businesses or others with experience in closed networks. ChatGPT is no different. It hits walls when prompted with processes not yet discovered and discussed. You have to guide the tool through from first principles. Can't do that without understanding the tool.

You can also waste time or over indulge in fear and anger storytelling outrage, consuming sugar far junk food information. Faster than ever. This will be a deeper discussion of resulting algorithm psychosis. We've never had more tools for bad information at the same time as having better information than ever accessible. This speeds up divides in humanity. Exterior signals regarding how people spend their time. Can we live with one another? Deep thought philosophers can stay busy with.

A nail gun in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to build a house does not create finished homes faster. Using a tool without understanding the fundamentals turns to nonsense. Will there be cheating? Yep. Your peers will notice. You will always have peers that do the hard work.

The first defintion for evil everywhere I look says "morally wrong".

Morals are subjective, no?

I disagree in that people on the internet have well proven how bad humans are at accurately identifying Nazis - I've seen many claims that ~50% of the population are Nazis.

>Good and evil are by definition subjective views.

I've never heard these terms defined that way.

>In what way would a neutral observer attribute good or evil to an action without adding their own biases?

Again, I don't get how this affects the objectivity or subjectivity of a thing in theory. Perception is fallible and a failure to observe something does not necessarily determine its existence or non-existence.

>To a "God", killing an infant is merciful and good if its part of their "plan".

That's such a hypothetical scenario I don't think it has any bearing on reality, and is not even a true thought experiment as you haven't defined "God." But the biggest problem is that you're just reiterating that you think evil is subjective as support for said belief. That is, you're using a belief that something is evil/good as proof that evil and good are subjective, when all it proves is that the belief is subjective.

The problem with good and evil is that they oversimplify complex realities, are vague, and carry a rhetorical weight that exceeds the objective information they convey. But that objective information still exists, and explaining away good and evil through semantics is a poor substitute for reframing it in more sophisticated terms.

It's equally okay to say you just like punching babies, as this is a philosophy sub and free discussion is "good." ;)

Seems the author of this piece didn't follow the first rule of commenting

I think I still dont follow your logic. Good and evil are by definition subjective views. In what way would a neutral observer attribute good or evil to an action without adding their own biases?

To a "God", killing an infant is merciful and good if its part of their "plan".

>How do you measure that, though?

That is notoriously difficult, hence the entire field of ethics.

>Even today, people will advocate death and torture of their perceived enemies. Are they evil?

Well, maybe. That's kind of my point. Calling something "evil" is essentially just a way of saying it is harmful, presumably intentionally so, as we don't usually assign moral weight to non-sentient objects, and most often to the extent that the harm exceeds its benefit to the evildoer. As a term, it carries connotations that are unhelpful (i.e., it tends to frame things in absolutes and does not allow for the existence of competing interests), but that's different from being subjective. When we're talking about torturing an infant or committing genocide, we're not talking about subjective perceptions. We're talking about the actions that are being done.

>How many people need to believe something is evil before its objective?

I don't see how that's supposed to have an effect on anything. Objectivity is fundamentally different from subjectivity, it's not just a degree of subjectivity.

Such a blind and egotistical take.

Some people think it's good to commit acts others consider evil. If neither side can compromise all you have is inevitable genocide and the only morals that matter are who has the biggest stick.