Perhaps that AI will bring us back to the medieval conception of production & dissemination of knowledge: monks who copied what was already written & known. Those with the best calligraphy were held in highest esteem. New researchers will have AI write their papers & the best researcher will be the one who selected the coolest AI stuff.
A topic for Borges. Knowledge will be a fixed sum of things and the best bricolage of what is known (by all) would be called science.
I support @UChicago's forward looking strategy with respect to the emerging AI revolution.
I say this even though this last quarter was the most difficult teaching experience I have had at Chicago, because of the use of AI by students in writing assignments and in developing research projects. I will have to radically change my teaching strategies to accommodate the brave new world to ensure AI tools are a complement and not a substitute for "the life of the mind." Further, I am adamantly opposed to any diminution of the role of the humanities at the university, which to me is part of UChicago's uniqueness. These challenges will not be solved by creating what are ultimately unenforceable barriers to AI use. In addition, provision of AI access to all students matters for equality reasons.
We know of a man who was caught publishing dozens of AI-generated articles in academic journals. The journal that caught him pursued a ban not only from that journal but also from all journals by that publisher. This is a major crisis and it seems the consequences will be severe.
Spending on working age welfare has barely shifted as a fraction of national income in decades. True that spending on some incapacity and disability benefits is rising but others are being squeezed. Torsten is right. That is not what is pushing up total spending and taxes.
AI being booed in commencement addresses seems pretty natural to me. It's really, really unusual for the people building and selling a new technology to promise that it will destroy people's livelihoods.
Whether you consider this to be "horrendous marketing," or "actually, a craven justification for VC investment" or "really, just honest communication" or "rationally over-emphasizing the probability of a long-tail catatrophic outcome" or whatever else, the point is ... it's very unusual.
I think today's 22yos should probably familiarize themselves with Claude and ChatGPT, but I don't entirely blame them for booing a technology whose architects have said, this will destroy your jobs.
Royal Pop, Audemars Piguet x Swatch collab
Milan, Italy🇮🇹
Decadent images
Consumerism devouring its own children
Possession, belonging, status symbols in a breakdown
Nothing has meaning anymore
Just a scramble to buy and resell at higher price
The spiral of total emptiness
"Don't let other people write your paper."
Economic sciences laureate Daron Acemoglu spoke to nine students around the world and shared his best career advice.
Watch the full conversation: https://t.co/WTO2wjwXFP
Radio 4's election programme taking a 12 minute break at 12.48am for the Shipping Forecast is one of the many reasons why it's the jewel in the BBC's crown.
Universities don't need to "teach students to use AI well." The whole point of AI is that it doesn't require any skill. Universities *should* teach students how to write and research on their own, and foster an ethic of shaming people who outsource their basic ability to think.
If you're thinking about using gen-AI to "write" books, this 🧵 is for you.
I’m a highly experienced editor who’s been in the biz a long time. Recently I’ve had manuscripts come to me where the author has used gen-AI – not for writing, I’ve been assured, but for