I use AI a lot but am not addicted to it. I know it seems something every addict would say, but simply it makes things faster. You can't really take responsibility for something it makes that you don't already know how it operates, or how should operate. That's the line between what you can sell to your client, or your boss, without it blowing up in your face when things go wrong. In theory everything I build with AI I can build by hand, but in many more days.
A builder is not addicted to their tools, but he won't certainly start a project without them, if they are available. Yet, he could work without some of them. Give a circular saw to someone that can't use it, and nothing good comes out of it. Give AI to a non coder, and nothing good (that lasts) will come out of it.
First year CD student excited to learn puts together a website, and more experienced guys makes a shitty comment that puts things into context. Then someone makes a funny comment mimicking its structure. Is that correct?
this study is not related to powerlifting or heavy activity in that sense, so it's not pertinent as a context, if anything it is pertinent to understand misinterpretations of the study.
That words are a byproduct of consciousness is a bold claim and requires some justification. I'm not implying it's backwards also for humans, but that the statement might not be true, and something else could be. Also, defining consciousness is hard.
I think most people forget the graph-like nature of scientific research. You don't have n useful papers and m useless ones by themselves, you have an interconnection of those. There may be isolated cliques of uselessness, but there isn't a clear correlation between academia and private research.
Many ideas come from philosophy, which many find useless.
Heraclitus discovered change back in ancient Greek, I don't know where we would be in scientific research without that (deliberately ignoring the debate about the originality of what we know about Heraclitus work). I bet his contemporaries found his "research" useless.
Not entirely true. Many science is gatekeeped, as well as other types of information. May books require illegal services to be obtained, or money (when available). Information about facts is buried in a lot of misinformation. Free flow is very hard to obtain!
the real money is in the coding surrounding models to make them efficient at specialized tasks. Casual users want general purpose models, and AI chat apps will stay for them. Most programs can benefit from a specialized AI that can be local, and #programs >> #users.
Students need to be taught how to use AI apps efficently to learn. Their goal is not to solve problems, but to learn how to solve them. Let alone, they instead use AI apps to solve problems for them.
AI apps are very powerful for teaching. You just need to tell them to do that, and not to directly solve your problem.
"tea" is a word that many use to indicate anything infused. But tea is anything that comes from camelia sinensis, while other beverages are more correctly called infusions. Camelia sinensis has caffeine.
you're partially right. It doesn't matter if they had specified the grams of coffee beans they used to produce those cups. It would have been better to specify both number of cups and how they were produced.
A builder is not addicted to their tools, but he won't certainly start a project without them, if they are available. Yet, he could work without some of them. Give a circular saw to someone that can't use it, and nothing good comes out of it. Give AI to a non coder, and nothing good (that lasts) will come out of it.