except (like it or not) students are in direct competition with each other. Unique assessments would be impossible to defend the first time a student claimed your "unfair" test cost them a job, scholarship or other competitive opportunity.
honest q: what would it look like from your perspective if someone worked in entirely different tools and then only moved their finished work to google docs at the end?
you're missing out on the false positives though; catching 80% of cheaters might be acceptable but 20% false positives (not the same thing as 20% of the class) would not be acceptable. AI generated content and plagarism are completely different detection problems.
Except the power imbalance: position, experience, social, etc. meant that the vast majority just took the zero and never complained or challenged the prof. Sounds like your typical out-of-touch academic who thought they were super clever.
this would be an incredibly tough play. We've seen few success stories, and even when the product is good building the business around them has often failed. Most of the consumer plays are terrible products with weak execution and no real market. I have no doubt they could supplement lots of consumer experiences but I'm not sure how they are more than a commodity component in that model. I'm a die-hard engineer, but equating the success of the iphone to Ive's design is like saying the reason there were so many Apple II's in 80's homes and classrooms was because of Woz's amazing design.
it's notable that there is no talk about defining what exactly AGI is - or even spelling out the three letter acronym - because that doesn't serve his narative. He wants the general public to equate human intelligence with current OpenAI, not ask what does this mean or how would we know. He's selling another type of hammer that's proving useful in some situations but presenting it as the last universal tool anyone will ever need.
He mayy be out front because he's the best PR face for this, but make no mistake there is massive collusion amongst all the players to inflte this bubble. Across MS, Oracle, AWS, OpenAI, Anthropic, NVidia and more all I see is a pair on conjoined snakes eating their own tail.
it's not just the cost of the vaccine roll-out though, you need test on your target demo and since these are healthy people the bar is very high. If the demographic (like males over 45) shows very little involvement in the infection vectors then testing might fail the cost-effectiveness, not the delivery of the vaccine.
this seems highly unlikely. Almost all of the software we're discussing in this context has little or no resources behind it. No lawyers are going to sue an OSS developer because there's no payday.
Reductio ad Absurdum may be what you're thinking of, but Straw Man might also apply. Funny enough the responder didn't actually do what you said. They stated of the 600+ dependencies they counted there was only one they felt comfortable implementing themselves. Your accusation of them taking your statement to the extreme is reverse straw man rhetoric; you're misrepresenting their argument as extreme or absurd when it’s actually not.
yeah, I typically start any substantial development work with getting things up to date so you're not building on something you'll find out is already broken when you do get around to that painful upgrade.
this seems to me to be trading one problem that might happen for one that is guaranteed: a very painful upgrade. Maybe you only do it once in a while but it will always suck.
>> and keeping them to well-known and trustworthy (security-wise) creators.
The true threat here isn't the immediate dependency though, it's the recursive supply chain of dependencies. "trustworthy" doesn't make any sese either when the root cause is almost always someone trustworthy getting phished. Finally if I'm not capable of auditing the dependencies it's unlikely I can replace them with my own code. That's like telling a vibe coder the solution to their brittle creations is to not use AI and write the code themselves.
this is a great strategy. If you really care about your now former coworkers use the opportunity to recognize and promote them. Fixing deficiencies is a job for those still working there, not you.
I'd kind of hope they'd bring it up before the exit interview. If you're only raising important issues on your way out the door it's just virtue signalling to make yourself feel better. Work to fix it or keep your mouth shut & move on.
this is not "with cause" though. They're always free to pay out your notice and have you finish immediately, but you can't be terminiated with cause after you've formally resigned.