baddash

Even though it seems radical, I think the right approach is to simply allow the students to use AI to its full potential, to generate answers, code, whatever.

The onus should be on the instructor to make sure that the student ends up actually understanding and being able to code/solve problems that they pose without using coding agents.

Why? Because:

1. this is exactly what is going on in the real world. People are able to get AI to do whatever the hell they want, but the ones who just use it lazily end up with huge cognitive debts and codebases riddled with opaque bugs that they do not understand whatsoever. If we prevent students from confronting this temptation, then we are sort of coddling or shielding them from it, and not really preparing them to avoid pitfalls of this type.

2. you can actually learn a LOT by being given the answer, if you actually care to learn. i personally think it's pretty fucking lame to handicap a student's ability to learn in an attempt to prevent lazy abuse. isn't the whole point of a grade to measure how well you understand things? can't you have pop quizzes, assignments on a computer with no agent use, written tests, etc etc. to catch the lazy abusers? this is an unnecessary prevention of lazy abuse that unfairly handicaps learning

I'm not talking about AI technology we use as the next generation of tooling. I am talking about new, possibly multiple intelligent species emerging which are superior to humanity.

awesome thank you

i think we are all beating around the bush and not addressing the root issue: AI could obsolete human beings in the future. what i'm not seeing is discussion or exploration of different branches or paths that could occur once that happens.

glad i gave that disclaimer to my advice then lol. my question then is, how long will that happen with AI psychotic upper management?

This honestly makes me feel ambivalent, as on the one hand, it is awesome that it is pushing creatives to be more original, but on the other hand it does threaten these types of creatives who have invested time into making this their livelihood :/

what you described is not how originality works.

think about how in music, when an artist comes out with something original and awesome, and then everyone starts copying it and creating their own derivative works, like Jimi Hendrix or something.

Did Hendrix become useless? Did everyone end up thinking he sucks or something? No, he is even more revered, as the originator of a new type of sound that probably created multiple genres

The same thing applies here. Originality will be valued and even empowered as extrapolation and development off of it can increase in speed and quality in the case you mention

I also define "slop" in a similar way. However, I specifically define it as creations that lack soul or originality. And can actually have a high degree of quality in some aspects, as you can see with some AI generated art and music. Because of this, I'm tempted to adopt a different term since "slop" feels too negative

Slop has always been around. AI has cheapened its creation.

then it isn't a slop fork machine anymore is it? i was under the impression that the best the SFM would get is generating... how do I say this? high quality low quality work. Basically, the ability to cheaply produce quality work, characterized by its lack of soul/originality. think amazing looking advertisement graphics. not to say that it can't do better than that. just meant it as an extreme example for illustrative purposes

If something is able to generate things with soul and true originality... we're talking about something incredible, a new intelligent species potentially

well... shit

I argue the opposite, that originality will actually become more valuable.

Think about it: everyone has characterized AI slop, as slop. Which means that we negatively value it in terms of originality. Combine that with the fact that there will be a lot of it, this means that original work will 1. stand out or be very distinct from slop, and 2. have its value amplified as a result of this polarization.

basically, we value originality more AND are able to identify it more readily.

related is also the fact that originality will literally be valuable as training data for future models

This psychosis you keep referring to will only end up punishing the ones who subscribe to it wouldn't it? Since it's out of touch with reality.

If that's indeed the case, then it sounds like an opportunity to get ahead of them since you know they will trip and fall at some point.

That's what I make of what you're describing, while sleep deprived and having given it some light thought LOL. So take that with a lot of salt. But it's kind of what I've been thinking these days anyways. Add to that that entrepreneurship is most likely getting empowered, and I think investing in yourself is the move these days. It will probably characterize the coming years strongly.

That's good to know, because all I really go off of is what I see posted online which is most likely skewed towards the polarizing takes (been unemployed for a while). Sounds like some positive news though, and I hope that these tools can help empower people to the point where they don't feel shackled by their jobs by doing something like lowering the barrier and manpower needed to succeed at entrepreneurship.

That shit with upper management sounds stupid af and I've heard the same type of shit from people I know who are in other fields. I'm guessing it's happening from a combination of ignorance, FOMO, investment, etc etc. But that is more of a systemic issue than anything to do with these tools imo.

people need to reframe coding agent usage. i see a lot of framing in zero-sum terms where it's either all dev or all agent, and then people start dooming and glooming over the latter. in reality it's like that one post on here a few days ago about it being like an iron man suit. it is a glowing, bright white power that can be incredible when wielded properly. unfortunately, people characterize it as an adversarial power that can and will take over your soul.

how about some true synergy instead of boring zero-sum people? smh. the true poetry here is that zero-sum thinking will become more of a thing of the past so there is some natural comedy with this title

same, my fat ass is ultra curious

in before every project manager on planet earth makes a "guess we don't need you devs anymore haha" joke during morning standup

there's literally results in the screenshot they have, and when i do it

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them?

Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

You don't have to care, and I'm not really sure why you thought I think that.

And yeah, people post their opinions on message boards. He posted his opinion, and I posted what I thought about it. What's the issue exactly? I'm not saying he shouldn't have posted it or something..

It might be a purposefully sensationalist framing in order to increase KPIs. It works because a lot of people have strong opinions things without thinking much.

My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things:

1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this.

2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest of it has nothing to do with them.

3. It's concerning that the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) can potentially cause this network to be used to label protestors as "far-left domestic terrorists", however, that is more of an issue with the NSPM than this network. Understanding the NSPM and the effects of it is probably worthwhile.

4. The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Is it typical to have oversight for a program like this, or necessary? What would the program be like?

Overall, the article feels sort of sensationalized. It frames Seattle Shield as suspicious and questionable due to its secrecy and the fact that it performs surveillance. However, there aren't any strong facts or evidence of this program being abused in some Big Brother-type way. Terry Albury framing it in this manner might be the most credible point against it, but I would have to look into that to determine how credible it is.

This is also what I was thinking... how did this article get so many upvotes when it has some glaringly weak points?

"Human Resources" is some grade A unintentional comedy name-wise. Dead giveaway that it's an NPC creation

ok, I kind of knew that already LOL, but I don't have any questions that are more specific so I can't really complain. just gotta get after it i guess.

Woah, didn't expect a cognition debt researcher to be in the comment section

jk :D your points make a lot of sense though!

dude... I need to break free from the wagie existence too. any advice? besides the points you've made already :P

lol I pray to the lord almighty my future managers aren't this fuckin dumb

Great point! Looks like you got some strategies for dealing with managers lol

That's kind of what I figured, sadly. I haven't experienced it personally yet since I got let go from my last job about 14 months ago, but it makes so much sense given how management is so willing to sacrifice quality for speed.

Yeah I like that better too, gonna start using that