jwmgregory
@jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on After they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations. 1 week ago:
additionally not everyone considers to backup the actual software used to compress/decompress the data. that isn’t permanent either and could disappear same as wikipedia, rendering such backups useless.
granted, it’s like, 10000x less likely than the already unlikely event of wikipedia being raptured. but the datahoarder mindset is better safe than sorry…
- Comment on The FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time. 1 week ago:
i mean, imho: if you think ~400 words of text constitutes a “wall of text” then i think you’re functionally illiterate, but that’s just my take.
- Comment on The FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time. 1 week ago:
you’re right to point to that hole in my rhetoric.
truthfully, it is a number i remember seeing widely cited while researching the topic years ago and i don’t have an immediate source to offer you. it largely comes out of studies around the late 80s through the early 00s; and it comes, for the most part, from studies that focused on narrow, immediate groups. think asking students currently taking or freshly out of a course about integrity. more recent research in this field shows that over a lifetime the vast majority of people engage in academically dishonest behaviors at least once and the research tends to focus on that, which is why you tend to see very high numbers reported: they have the caveat of the scope being expanded to lifetimes or careers rather than more momentary snapshots. because basically everyone has done it at some point, statistically speaking. maybe try looking for modern research focusing on serial cheating. those numbers tend to be more in line with the older figures i mention. whether or not that is ethically/statistically significant or not is up to the reader, obviously. i think it is a shift in methodology that looks at flashier and bigger percentages for dubious reasons, personally.
i will make an effort to find you specific sources when i get some time either today or tomorrow but for now you can likely find many of these figures cited by searching for the journal of academic ethics using ERIC, focusing on earlier sources to find the methodology behind the mythical “25-35%” idea. you will also see more modern research that paints a general picture showing academic integrity is more a systemic issue than an individual moral failing, which seems to be scholarly consensus at this point although I won’t make that claim outright because it isn’t my field. i admire you wanting to seek out sources and verify information, sorry if i wasn’t helpful enough in the immediate now! i will either edit this comment or make a new one so you get the ping once i find specific sources to share to help your research. for now, i hope the ERIC query i provided is a good enough jumping off point.
- Comment on The FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time. 1 week ago:
the problem with your response isn’t that you used AI, it’s that you attempt to use it in place of your own agency and intellectual ability instead of as a supplement to it.
correct me if i’m wrong but it seems like the idea here is that you want me to point out how clearly piss-poor your response is and then flip it back on me to say “HA you’re a HYPOCRITE!! SEE! AI IS BAAAaaaaAAaDDDdD!!!”
students in the 2000s copying and pasting things mindlessly into Google were engaging in genuine academically dishonest behavior. that isn’t because search engines are bad though, plenty of people used Google honestly, and I think anyone with a fucking brain can see that. so, why then, do people wanna make the same stupid-ass argument when it comes to AI? are you so fucking swept up in the zeitgeist as to not see your own hypocrisy?
like I said, all straw and no fucking man is what you people are.
and, if I am misreading your intentions here, which is assuredly possible… then I refer back to my initial statement in this reply.
- Comment on The FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time. 1 week ago:
yeah, and that should horrify you: because Western anti-AI hysteria is deeply rooted in a fascist cultural obsession with “ownership” of thoughts and ideas.
who the fuck cares if you used an AI tool to do work?
a decently designed course in academia won’t be something you can just “cheat” on. there’s this implication that the behavior is somehow the responsibility of the student body, so much so they should be punished for it; when there is no accountability for the professors and educators who actually design a shit-ass curriculum that makes students engage in these behaviors rather than actually learning. students are the victims here, no academia. academic dishonesty policies assume there is some massive contingent of students trying to “cheat the system” at all times and thus we must rabidly defend academia from it, as if she is some virgin maid. that isn’t true. the vast majority of students do not cheat. self-reported rates of cheating remain at a constant 25-35% of the student body over large periods of time. why? because it’s a myth. there aren’t large numbers of people trying to “defraud” academia. sure, it happens, but is it enough to justify the many more lives that are ruined by frivolous accusations?
i would cite case studies but literally it is so fucking common just google search and take your pick for whatever story tickles your exact rhetorical mindset.
and no, i’m not some “cheater” myself trying to defend academic dishonesty. i’ve played by the rules my entire academic career and im not gonna sit and be strawmanned bc i happen to notice the absolutely fucking egregious grifts and power imbalances to compose the modern academy. education is important, knowledge should be FREE for everyone no matter what! you should be pissed that these people masquerade as intellectuals when they’re nothing more than cowards trying to steal opportunity from the youth. it is not the place of the teacher to be the arbiter of discipline, that is the most heinous misreading of pedagogical principles and the fact that it has been allowed to go on for so long is a large part of why we sit here at the precipice of a new mass genocide, with thousands of ignorant fools clamoring it on or being willfully ignorant of it happening.
- Comment on ‘An Overwhelmingly Negative And Demoralizing Force’: What It’s Like Working For A Company That’s Forcing AI On Its Developers. 4 weeks ago:
you work in technology, presumably. so you’re supposedly an engineer of sorts.
what kind of engineer says obviously wrong statements based on their feelings?
i’m willing to provide different sources and discussion if you object to that one for some reason but virtually all facets of research agree current artificial intelligence performance is nothing like what you are suggesting. what you’re claiming just isn’t true and you are spreading misinformation. it’s okay to be scared but it’s not okay to lie.
- Comment on 'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media 5 weeks ago:
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
- Comment on You are not living in reality if you do not see the huge difference between THEN and NOW 5 weeks ago:
no, i just think i don’t like dealing with idiots like yourself who’s perogotive is to abscond anything you read that makes you feel any cognitive dissonance.
i have nothing good to say to those who can’t engage in good-faith discussion, like yourself. you’re part of the problem with the world nowadays.
- Comment on You are not living in reality if you do not see the huge difference between THEN and NOW 5 weeks ago:
um yes? because it’s the truth? do some research before posting man. even if you were alive back then that doesn’t mean you knew wtf was up everywhere in the country with every demographic.
- Comment on 'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media 5 weeks ago:
i hate how brainwashed westerners are. will go on a diatribe about the importance of free speech and then rabidly defend copyright as if it isn’t directly contrary to the idea of freedom of information, all in the same breath.
inb4 that’s a description of every reply to this comment.
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
my only disagreement is that unfortunately they’ve succeeded in pushing the overton window so hard that the ratio is actually much more controversial than the comment implies. if only every edgelord here read and seriously considered this.
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
nope. i know what i said and i meant it.
they start like this. then they become shitty, abusive incels in adulthood. then they vote for people like the cadre of neofascist in western politics rn.
the incel to fascist pipeline is real and dangerous. and i won’t act like those who fall down it are victims and not complicit monsters anymore.
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
this is a fair point, i don’t disagree. it’s valid to call me out on conflating ideas of common decency with absolute morality.
that said, there are certain things that if you do; definitely make you a bad person. i think to the recently viral tweet of the ivy league ethics & philosophy professor who was absolutely aghast at incoming students’ ideas of morality. it speaks to the problem in this thread.
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
no actually, i’m done sitting and acting like that sort of shit is acceptable, no thanks.
paradox of tolerance demands you completely and decisively shut these fucks down before they takeover your society with their shitty ass rhetoric of hate
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
lmfao what a fucking excuse of a reason. i hope you know i hate you. not hyperbole. i hope everyone else knows i hate you too. like genuinely, and actually; blatantly being a terrible person like you are is a large part of what is wrong with the world and i despise every single one of you chucklefucks that inches us every further away from decency day by day.
do you recognize you’re doing olympic level mental gymnastics in order to make the people you identify with in the internet story the good guys or are you just incredibly dense and/or like fucking with people for kicks?
- Comment on The consequences (of my actions) have been extreme 1 month ago:
seriously jesus fucking christ what about this in particular is making it such a good litmus test to root out shitty people? they’re all just immediately, unironically, unabashedly identifying themselves in the comments here, just like that lmfao.
absolute trash is absolute trash ig.
- Comment on Something's wrong with denmark 1 month ago:
hard agree i actually think france’s method of counting is pretty intuitive