CharonY

I agree, it is a matter of degree and especially in terms of motivation it follows a very old mold. The one thing I am uncertain of is what how many of these issues (from AI to social media and, say Cliffs notes can be layered on top of each other before we see a really new change. Not well at this point. It really just provides answers of various quality but is not really good in asking the right questions. Well, that is exactly not teaching. I am wondering, even if it has how well it works. A big part of teaching (including in statistics) is not just highlighting, say, methods and approaches, but also anticipating how students might (or might not) think about it and get them to ask questions that tell you where their misunderstanding in concepts or approach might be. I am not sure current AI are good at that as they take whatever misconceptions the querier has as gospel (mostly).

Not only that. I always imagine it more radial- i.e. there are some tenets that we are somewhat certain about and then branch out into all kinds of related things. Whatever we learn about these edges can solidify our central assumptions. Or, if it turns out that too many aspects point a particular way, we shift the center of gravity to a new assumption and now spread out from there. It could be a biology thing, but frequently it looks to me more like random walk rather than towards a specific goal (could also because we are better at fermenting and consuming fermented stuff).

I don't disagree, but convenience and scale has changed in my experience. I.e., 20 years or so back you had a handful of occasional cheaters in classes. Also use of cliff notes requires to actually read them and write a summary of it down. It is not great, but better than nothing. What I get is literally a random response to what they typed into Chat GPT with no editing whatsoever. I think there was still some sort of barrier to pay someone to do all the work vs anonymously copying prompts into a convenient tool. And it sets standards on what students expect to do nowadays. I shared an article earlier where students in lit classes are complaining that reading a book is too much work. I see the same thing in biological sciences. I.e. instead of having a few students not learning, but passing by cheating, we now have lowered expectation what students should be able to do (and reading comprehension is the big one). Over the last few years, I have seen massive drops that I have not experienced before. Grade inflation and related issues usually go fairly slow and you needed a 30-yr or so perspective to see measurable change. Now it happens in about 5yr intervals. Accessing books (E or physical) have dropped precipitously and students now demand (and admin bows to these demands) that the only exam questions you may have are those on e.g., slides, so you cannot actually teach context found in books anymore. Again, the issue is not that some folks use it to cheat on an essay. But rather that they use it to avoid gaining basic skills (up until they get their first job). I suspect it may take another 5-10 years to see the scope of the impact as obviously all I have at this point is personal experience and anecdotes from colleagues. But articles like these, just reflect a lot of what I am seeing. This is not to say that this is all AI. There are also structural issues (e.g. teaching for tests rather than understanding), it is just another element that would make things worse: https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-this-the-end-of-reading Now, the obvious answer to that is that this might be just a shift how we communicate. E.g., videos vs. reading. But my issue is that we do not have a strategy to address these changes in a meaningful way and all indicators show that despite spending way more time on videos as with books, folks know much less and lack the skill to build knowledge. I just don't think we found an alternative to reading yet. But we found a way to avoid reading more effectively.

That is a rather bad example, as complex modeling is not very amenable to manual input and was heavily automated from the get-go. I have little concerns on its application to such (already) heavily automated processes. And while it may impact e.g. arts, I am not too worried about that- it will stifle some elements of artistry, but may enable other areas, such as when photography became a thing. The actual worry is an entirely different one. What I worry about is that it will impact basic skills, such as the ability to read, remember and synthesize things. The ability of kids (but also adults) is already degraded by constant distraction. However, there were still areas where young adults were challenged to exercise those skills. Examples include writing assays. While finding sources might be trivial now, they usually still had to read and try to understand articles and synthesize somehow (often badly) that information. But the goal was never the essays themselves. Invariably they are crappy anyway. But the goal was that by going through the process they learn how to read and eventually how to think about, well, anything. Take this away from them, it removes yet another learning opportunity. And if we go down that route, they won't gain many skills even after going through college. And I do think it is a fundamental different situation to e.g., when the internet became a thing and simplified research. In order to deal with the change that is coming, we need to fundamentally rethink how we teach, which really has not changed much in the last maybe thousands of years. It is a tool that allows us to stop thinking and at least so far I am not seeing any good responses that would work at scale. And while for a while I was thinking that I am in the old man yelling at cloud stage, talking with colleagues around the globe, and even with young ones, we already see change at a speed that we have never experienced. COVID-19 was one factor, for sure, but things are still accelerating. Edit: I should add, I am really talking about higher (college) level reasoning skills. The the lower level skills, including remembering and reproduction is still present, but smaller fraction of students now reach the higher levels, which 10-20 years ago were considered prerequisites.

It does ruin teaching as students forgo tasks that could build up critical thinking muscles.

Well, considering that learning and critical thinking are things folks really don't want to do, replacing those skills with AI is going to cause a huge bunch of issues. Already are, actually.

I think there was a study showing that particular mindset, i.e., where economic or other issues are mere excuses for personality cults and folks would justify even an 180 from their original position to justify that. I just cannot recall how the effect was called.

I heard rumors that CDC scientists were instructed to purge certain terms from submitted publications. If true this would a desaster for integrity of science. Also it would suggest that the fears from right wing folks of getting muzzled because of EDI and other measures is just projection (again). Compelled speech my arse.

DEI caused bird flu and high egg prices. But the highly competent folks decided to stop testing/reporting and the numbers go down. That's meritocracy at work.

I think there will be a power struggle, after all the whole university system would be at peril if they acquiesced en masse. But who knows. We are pretty much in a one step forward and half a dozen steps backwards situation.

In addition I will note again the failure to provide specifics or any evidence that the provided assertions are true and caused by DEI. It is not explained how the situation in LA is linked to DEI, for example. There are issues with DEI policies, no doubt. This is true for virtually all policies. However, if one keeps harping on merit, it is pretty clear that no discussion in good faith can be had. Event he link provided to seemingly support their position does not mention merit a single time. Rather it is more talking about whether DEI measures actually contribute to diversity. Let's make things rather clear as the provided gish gallop clearly shows that there is no meaningful discussion to be had with that poster. There is a huge body of literature showing that in many cases, meritocracy is mostly a myth in many respects- selection parameters of successful candidates in job searches for example do not necessarily predict ability reliably. Even worse, there are many non-performance parameters which strongly influence hiring preferences. Especially in low-diversity environments conformity is such a parameter, i.e. having a similar look, accent and mannerism as the majority becomes very important. Meritocracy is then used as an excuse to solidify such a status quo. We often trick ourselves into thinking that our selection is objective by assigning scores to various parameters, but as everyone involved in hiring will tell you (if they are honest) this really just hides the underlying subjectivity. It does not mean that merit has no, ehm merit. But it means that we often have biased and imperfect rubrics to measure merit. If one really want to create a system that is based on merit, it needs to be flexible enough to identify positive characteristics, even if folks look or behave differently, as long as it does not affect the core mission. A secondary goal is to increase diversity in the group to avoid this type of groupthink where folks start to believe that having a beard and polo shirt is a sign of intelligence, because they all look like that and are clearly the most intelligent folks in the bunch. Ironically, one very valid criticism of DEI is not that they start hiring unsuitable folks, this only happens if the hiring committee or manager themselves are incompetent (i.e. they are unable to spot suitable candidates regardless of measures present). What is more likely to happen is that DEI policies amount to little more than window dressing (the link provided hinted at that). I.e., in many cases it is not really effective at breaking the mold as it does not address the actual barriers present. But again, bringing out merit in context of DEI is just a mildly veiled suggestion that minorities are fundamentally less capable, as obviously fully merit-based systems for some reason keep on benefiting white (and orange) men. An older but easy-to-follow read is here Lawton, Anne. "The meritocracy myth and the illusion of equal employment opportunity." Minn. L. Rev. 85 (2000): 587. Another well-cited article using an empirical approach using personnel data is here https://doi.org/10.1086/588738 This article describes the illusion of objectivity and how it can lead to discrimination https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001

So this is not entirely new, but the scope is quite a bit larger. During the Harper era in Canada, there was a worry that the government would make climate and related data inaccessible. I vaguely remember that US researchers, and as well as folks from NASA and EPA were involved in preserving (open) Canadian data. In 2016 the role were almost exactly reversed, and many folks I knew in the EPA were more or less suddenly gone.This goes deeper as instead of just running to the ground, they also want to set it on fire. And they are emboldened by the fact that even folks who could benefit from the information, including farmers have to a large degree hopped on the MAGA train. If folks blame the Libs for forest fires, they do not need to worry about accountability for uncontrolled fires anymore. If they believe that climate change is a hoax, they can stop spending monitoring its impact on resources, diseases and so on. Some more here https://www.theverge.com/news/604484/donald-trumps-data-purge-has-begun I consider it unlikely. There will be folks that take a stance and get fired, the majority likely will continue and keep their heads down. We see already that despite the vague directives, most agencies are overreacting and are erring on the side of caution for scrubbing information and resources. Unfortunately, the threat is very effective and lasts even after it is removed. Again during Harper there were repercussions for scientists in federal agency if they were not toeing the line. After Trudeau got into power, new contracts added a clause allowing most federal scientists to be able to communicate openly. However, even then the uptake on that was limited, in large part because folks realized that their job security might depend on not rocking the boat too much. There is, unfortunately also a bit of a similar development in universities, despite the tenure systems, but that is probably another discussion.

I will note that yet again you failed to describe what you think DEI actually means. You basically just described what you think are DEI failures without linking the mechanism (how DEI works in practice) to the actual outcome. So again the question, how do you think DEI works, say in hiring processes?

That is part of it, for sure. But don't underestimate the bias and preconception some folks have regarding certain types of the population. I think quite a few would consider certain folks undeserving of support, regardless in which form.

If I am not mistaken, at least some of the images display examples of chiaroscuro, a baroque/renaissance technique building on stark contrasts between light and dark. Usually dark backgrounds with characters or part of them exhibiting illumination as mentioned by exchemist.

What is the problem you spoke of. Why do you think that the issue is unrelated to racism. What do genocides have to do with DEI? You are making wide speculations on various unrelated topics and you keep failing to tie anything to DEI. Potentially these things are tied together in your head somehow, but so far you have not really explained it in a way that someone other than yourself could understand what you mean. Perhaps to lay some groundwork, could you explain precisely what you think DEI is and what it tries to address? Without any excursions to dooms day, genocide, wars etc. please. Just the basic definitions first.

Most likely. But I have been (undercover) among drunk theoretical physicists and, well things got weird (though to be fair, maybe I just wasn't drunk and educated enough to follow). But yes, if we talk about even somewhat realistic/practical hypotheses, and especially working from an area of partial rather than no evidence, you are certainly correct.

Most likely. It could veer a bit into semantics here. I think the most general definition is that abiogenesis assumes life is originating from non-living matter. So the only way would be for biological matter to arise while skipping non-biological matter. This, of course is not really plausible, though the other part of semantics if of course defining what is precisely living vs non-living matter, where the borderline is probably a little bit fluid (as in most things biological, and mimics the delineation between chemistry and biology). Much of the attention has shifted towards replicating polymers and related activities, for example.

I mean, clearly the prices are going down, as they decided it was going down. The chart is clearly a product of DEI.

I requested specifics related to the DEI comment. This is another random assortment of unformed thoughts on completely other matters. Again, specifics are needed. A discussion needs to be understandable and engage with the reader. It shouldn't be like a caterpillar on an exhaust pipe that draws upon the ignorance of the fading liquid that evaporates into mist.

These sentences do not make much sense to me. Can you put out specifics?

I am referring to this not some abstract input/output scenario: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/meta-knew-it-used-pirated-books-train-ai-authors-say-2025-01-09/

I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However, this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it: As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things. To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.

Well, doesn't change the legal aspect that they accessed for-pay literature from pirate sites.