Random Thread

[Raphael]

I'm neither a teacher nor an education expert, but I've wondered for a while if one of the main challenges in teaching might be that, the more you know about a topic, the more difficult it becomes for you to understand the perspective of people who don't know much about that topic.

Now I wonder, are actual education experts doing research into that kind of thing?

[Moose-tache]

Yes. This is a huge issue and is the subject of a lot of research.

Some of the most public-facing research on this topic is in legal education, because law schools love to hire celebrity lawyers without asking them if they've ever led a classroom before.

[zompist]

That's OK, you can just fire the teachers and use ChatGPT instead.

(Apparently some techbro is suggesting just that. It's not the AIs that will kill us, it's the techbrocracy built on AI hype.)

[Man in Space]

techbrocracy

stealing this

[Ryusenshi]

It's not the AIs that will kill us, it's the techbrocracy built on AI hype.

Seconded. I wasn't surprised by the latest developments in AI, but I was surprised by how eagerly people embraced it, going as far as firing people to replace them with AI tools.

"A.I. turns this single bullet point into a long email I can pretend I wrote."
"A.I. makes a single bullet point out of this long email I can pretend I read."
Source: https://marketoonist.com/2023/03/ai-wri ... -read.html

"The good news is we're getting lots of engagement on our A.I. generated content."
"Amazing! What's the bad news?"
"It looks like most of that engagement is coming from A.I. generated traffic."
Source: https://marketoonist.com/2022/11/by-bots-for-bots.html

[Raphael]

If a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of something not really connected to what the book is about, would you see that as false advertising, or as cheating, or as something like that? For instance, if a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of trees, but the book is not actually about trees, or even about Nature in a more general sense, would you see that as a form of cheating?

[keenir]

If a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of something not really connected to what the book is about, would you see that as false advertising, or as cheating, or as something like that? For instance, if a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of trees, but the book is not actually about trees, or even about Nature in a more general sense, would you see that as a form of cheating?

I'd see it as confusing, certainly.
Is it a book about the author's travels or anti-stress advice? If either of those, the cover may link the woodlands the author visits in several places; or the author may suggest the reader spend time in the depths of a forest to relax.

Or maybe the trees are stand-ins for the people of a community, and the trees are there to represent how anyone can be a part of the community.

[WeepingElf]

I have seen books with misleading titles, too. One example was a book titled Wege zur Nachhaltigkeit ('Roads to Sustainability'), but all it did was to rehearse the problems - there was nothing in the book about how sustainability can be achieved.

[hwhatting]

One example was a book titled Wege zur Nachhaltigkeit ('Roads to Sustainability'), but all it did was to rehearse the problems - there was nothing in the book about how sustainability can be achieved.

Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung?

[WeepingElf]

One example was a book titled Wege zur Nachhaltigkeit ('Roads to Sustainability'), but all it did was to rehearse the problems - there was nothing in the book about how sustainability can be achieved.

Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung?

Of course. But the title promised more than just a statement of what was going wrong.

[hwhatting]

One example was a book titled Wege zur Nachhaltigkeit ('Roads to Sustainability'), but all it did was to rehearse the problems - there was nothing in the book about how sustainability can be achieved.

Selbsterkenntnis ist der erste Schritt zur Besserung?

Of course. But the title promised more than just a statement of what was going wrong.

Yes. I was joking.

[Raphael]

Thank you for the feedback!

[Raphael]

"The good news is we're getting lots of engagement on our A.I. generated content."
"Amazing! What's the bad news?"
"It looks like most of that engagement is coming from A.I. generated traffic."
Source: https://marketoonist.com/2022/11/by-bots-for-bots.html

I just now noticed that that cartoon is from last November. That surprises me a bit - I had the impression that AI only became a much-talked-about thing early this year.

[MacAnDàil]

That's OK, you can just fire the teachers and use ChatGPT instead.

The students who have tried this with me and my colleagues have generally been those who demostrate the least competence.

(Apparently some techbro is suggesting just that. It's not the AIs that will kill us, it's the techbrocracy built on AI hype.)

Sure.

[MacAnDàil]

If a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of something not really connected to what the book is about, would you see that as false advertising, or as cheating, or as something like that? For instance, if a book's cover shows a photo or drawing of trees, but the book is not actually about trees, or even about Nature in a more general sense, would you see that as a form of cheating?

I find unnecessarily confusing some books which are translated into French but without the title translated. Two of my favourite recent books, Deep Work by Cal Newport and The Good Life by Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz are culprits though, so it doesn't prevent from buying the books and reading them.

[Raphael]

Since we're partly talking about ChatGPT here now, I just discovered a blog post on that topic from about a month ago by David Schraub, which looks at it from an angle I hadn't thought of yet:

https://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2023/06/h ... riter.html

Basically, how will human become good or great writers in the future, if, in order to get there, people usually have to go through periods of being bad or mediocre writers yet - and during those periods, they might be completely unable to compete with ChatGPT?

[Man in Space]

Seroquel…It’s like Mjölnir. You can be in the worst fit of madness of your life and you take it for two or three days and it just straight-up no-sells it. It is terrifying how clear my head is now—but more terrifying yet that I was atomically, gibberingly, Katy-bar-the-door-and-call-the-ambulance INSANE going up to it.

[keenir]

Seroquel…It’s like Mjölnir. You can be in the worst fit of madness of your life and you take it for two or three days and it just straight-up no-sells it. It is terrifying how clear my head is now—but more terrifying yet that I was atomically, gibberingly, Katy-bar-the-door-and-call-the-ambulance INSANE going up to it.

I'm glad you feel better. (and my sympathies for the lead-up)

[Travis B.]

Seroquel…It’s like Mjölnir. You can be in the worst fit of madness of your life and you take it for two or three days and it just straight-up no-sells it. It is terrifying how clear my head is now—but more terrifying yet that I was atomically, gibberingly, Katy-bar-the-door-and-call-the-ambulance INSANE going up to it.

Glad to hear you're doing much better than before. And yes, psych meds that work are a godsend.

[Raphael]

And yes, psych meds that work are a godsend.

I have very little patience for the people who are ideologically or philosophically opposed to them. If they don't want to use them, that's their choice, but asserting that it's somehow universally bad or wrong to take them? Your fucking philosophical musings are pretty weak tea compared to the raw experience of unmedicated depression.




Completely unrelated:

https://apnews.com/article/119-years-ov ... 8d35376fc9