Yep, and they fuck themselves over academically because lecturers notice how their time spent in online-learning platforms doesn’t match their assessment submissions.

Students inevitably get questioned about their content, only for the lecturer to discover they don’t know shit, because they cheated. Had the student actually used it properly, they might know enough about the content to scrape by.

In any case, I’ve seen this happen five times lol. One of them because my lecturer asked one of my classmates what ‘frivolous’ and ‘multifaceted’ meant, and fumbled before saying they used a thesaurus.

She was then asked in plain speech what she intended to say, and ended up with an “I don’t know” - boom. Academic integrity compromised, investigation into her Learnline metrics, and cross referencing her work from two years earlier. Termination of her course followed two weeks after.

Most students use it; the lecturers know this. The difference is whether people use it as a tool, or a replacement.

In any case, essays are supposed to be a metric of knowledge and evidence of independent research. In practice? A good essay really only reflects one thing - the student is good at writing essays. I know people in early childhood education who suffered through university, who have more intuition and emotional intelligence than people who got by on academic prowess.

Lol, oops, I got poo brain right now. I inferred they couldn’t edit because the methodology doesn’t say whether revisions were allowed.

What is clear, is they weren’t permitted to edit the prompt or add personalization details seems to imply the researchers weren’t interested in understanding how a participant might use it in a real setting; just passive output. This alone undermines the premise.

It makes it hard to assess whether the observed cognitive deficiency was due to LLM assistance, or the method by which it was applied.

The extent of our understanding of the methodology is that they couldn’t delete chats. If participants were only permitted to a a one-shot generation per prompt, then there’s something wrong.

But just as concerning is the fact that it isnt explicitly stated.

The biggest flaw in this study is that the LLM group wasn’t allowed explicitly permitted to edit their essays and was explicitly forbidden from altering the parameters. Of course brain activity looks low if you just copy-paste a bot’s output without thinking. That’s not “using a tool”; that’s outsourcing cognition.

If you don’t bother to review, iterate, or humanize the AI’s output, then yeah… it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: no thinking in, no thinking out.

In any real academic setting, “fire-and-forget” turns into “fuck around and find out” pretty quick.

LLMs aren’t the problem; they’re tools. Even journal authors use them. Blaming the tech instead of the lazy-ass operator is like saying:

These people got swole by hand-sawing wood, but this pudgy fucker used a power saw to cut 20 pieces faster; clearly he’s doing it wrong.

No, he’s just using better tools. The problem is if he can’t build a chair afterward.

I don’t get it? The portal is in the base game?

If RFK was using gpt for public health recommendations things would be a LOT better.

“Uhhmmm technically, it doesn’t suck, just whatever goes past the event horizon falls into it.”

She’s got ‘fuck me’ eyes.

Google can suck my fat fucking graphenis

God, gamers are fucking dick heads.

Wouldn’t be surprised if a bunch of wankers started complaining about button prompts in menu’s…

pfft… Look at this fucking game, trying to guide me with the left and right bumpers through the different tabs, I know how to change tabs! Stop guiding meee.

But when there are no button prompts:

pfft… This game is so poorly made, how am I meant to know how to change tab? Is it the bumpers? Triggers? Left thumb-stick? The right one? Do I press (B) to unfocus my equipment tab, then select the tab and press (A)? Fuck this game!

I’d pull, if not for the fact that a Silver Wolf rerun will probably drop real soon. The buffs are so good I’m gonna E4>E6.

and get you out of those clo-oh-ohoaaattheess

Hey man, its your $20. Do whatever you want with it lol.

Porn revenue proves anatomy is sexy? Cool, by that logic, McDonald’s proves burgers are inherently gourmet.

You’re not making arguments, you’re just stapling confidence to correlation and calling it a worldview.

Lemmy when someone uses AI to get a cheap ($0.001 worth of electricity), instant answer instead of spending 20 minutes wading through SEO sludge and AI-generated garbage designed to maximize page time:

“Nooo! It’s destroying the planet!”

Lemmy when someone powers Doom: Dark Ages with a nuclear reactor on a $20,000 RGB space heater:

“Based.”

The sad fact: it’s lukewarm at best, but people are committed to reheating it.

Read it again. They do call it evil lol.

• First sentence of their third post.

I didnt dismiss it as ‘simply’ doom posting,

• I agreed; there is a lot of serious issues at play here.

I did argue a point; my point:

• This is alarmist doom-posting. “REJECT THE INEVITABLE”. Famous last words before getting trampled by the passage of time.

I’m sure the horseshoe makers, telephone switchboard operators, and scribes all feel your pain.

deleted by creator

AI isn’t “fascist propaganda” any more than the printing press was. They’re blaming a tool for the actions of people.

Yes, there are serious issues: privacy, misinformation, exploitation; but reducing it all to “AI is evil” is lazy, alarmist nonsense.

They’re not critiquing tech; they’re moralizing to a crowd that already agrees with them. If you want change, start making arguments, not doomposts.

I’m trying to accommodate for our mates overseas.

But yeah, you’re right, now, I’ll be off, I need to go buy a pack of Winnie Blues from the Servo, then head down to the bottle-o to grab a carton of Coopers.