Your issue with physics but not with math reminds me a little of Hume's law. The difference that has always made that difference "make sense" to me is that math rules, even the axiom we use, are entirely chosen by the people using them, but the rules of physics are only useful if they match/predict what happens in the real world. For math we get to pick the ones that happen to be useful at a given time for a given problem (my go-to example of "it's all made up and the points don't matter" is why 1 isn't considered prime). For physics we're constrained to pick what best describes the real world. It probably helped that nearly all the physics course I had in high school/university had lab components focused on experimentally validating those rules/using those rules to predict results.
If you're feeling nice, randomize whose time remains stable (to keep things fair), keep the organizer's time stable, or pick the time that minimizes the number of participants who will have the meeting time change.
If you're feeling mean, randomize whose time remains stable (to make it hard to predict), move the meeting for the organizer, pick the time that maximizes the number of participants who will have the meeting time change, or split the difference and move everyone. Meeting was at 10 AM for Alice and 9 AM for Bob, but now it can be at either 11 AM for Alice and 9 AM for Bob or 10 AM for Alice and 8 AM for Bob? Now the meeting is at 10:30 AM for Alice and 8:30 AM for Bob.
They mean using the AI to do the import things and the higher structure for them, not removing tedium. It's like using a calculator for math school/home-work designed to teach multiplication, which requires no transcription or putting into context. The tool isn't removing tedium. It's removing the very thing they're supposed to be learning.
And my question is, in the context of learning something, how in the world is having the AI do the thing you're supposed to be learning enticing unless you don't actually care about learning the thing
Why do you think you didn't do similar when you were a student? We've seen this exact issue with other technology before: calculators for math; typewriters and then word processors for writing assignments; audio books for literacy. In those cases we've collectively realized there's a benefit in getting the manual skill and understanding how to use it before shortcutting things with the technology, even if most of the time you'll just end up using the technology. My best guess is that for most people in those classes who failed because of ai use, they don't care about the understanding (usually) required to get a good grade, they just care about the grade itself and the doors that opens for them.
> Is that how you want to build a company or society on. Resentment?
I think this misunderstands their goals. They don't care how society/a company is built. All they care about is that they are the one building it and that they are at the top of the hierarchy.
Just like with the startups and tech companies they built, they see speed as a critical advantage so that they can be the first-mover and establish a moat. Long-term viability and health is a distant secondary or even tertiary concern. If the panopticon and some weirdly neofeudal technofacist society can be built faster than something more egalitarian, then that neofeudal technofacist society is - from their perspective - better and that is what they will bias towards and build.
God, i am so glad to see these guys succeeding. The sun may have burned out, but the sky is still bright thanks to them. May they be so successful that i can eventually buy workstation versions of their minicomputers, sort of like how they made CoaL for triton.