I want to start off by saying that I agree there are aspects of the process which are important and should be learned, but this is more to do with critical thinking and applicable skills than it has to do with the process itself.
Of note, this part of your reply in particular I believe is somewhat shortsighted
Cheating, whether using AI or not, is preventing yourself from learning and developing mastery and understanding.
Using AI to answer a question is not necessarily preventing yourself from learning and developing mastery and understanding. The use of AI is a skill in the same way that any ability to look up information is a skill. But blindly putting information into an AI and copy/pasting the results is very different from using AI as a resource in a similar way one might use a book or an article as a resource. A single scientific study with a finding doesn't make fact - it provides evidence for fact and must be considered in the context of other available evidence.
In addition, learning to interact with and use AI is a skill in the same way that learning to interact with and use a phone, or the internet, or an app are all skills. With interaction layers becoming increasingly more abstract (which is normal and good), people need to have skills at each layer in order for processes to exist and for tools be useful to humanity. Most modern tools require people who can operate on different levels with different levels of skill. While computers are an easy example since you are replying on some kind of electronic device which requires everything from chemists to engineers to fabrication specialists and programmers (hardware, software, operating system, etc.) to work, this is true for nearly any human made product in the modern world. Being able to drive a car is a very different skill set than being able to maintain a car, or work on a car, or fabricate parts for a car, or design parts for a car, or design the machinery that manufactures the parts for the car, and so on.
This is a particularly long winded way of pointing out something that's always been true - the idea that you should learn how to do math in your head because 'you won't always have a calculator' or that the idea that you need to understand how to do the problem in your head or how the calculator is working to understand the material is a false one and it's one that erases the complexity of modern life. Practicing the process helps you learn a specific skill in a specific context and people who make use of existing systems to bypass the need of having that skill are not better or worse - they are simply training a different skill. The means by which they bypass the process is extremely important - they could give it no thought at all or they may critically think about it and devise a process which still pays attention to the underlying process without fully understanding how to replicate it. The difference in approach is important, and in the context of learning it's important to experiment and learn critical thinking skills to make a decision of where you wish to have that additional mastery and what level of abstraction you are comfortable with and care about interacting with.
Is that for sure right? I don’t know. I don’t really care. My daughter was happy with an answer and I’ve already warned her it could be bullshit. But curiosity was satisfied.
I'm not sure if you recognize this, but this is precisely how mentalism, psychics, and others in similar fields have always existed! Look no further than Pliny the elder or Rasputin for folks who made a career out of magical and mystical explanations for everything and gained great status for it. ChatGPT is in many ways the modern version of these individuals, gaining status for having answers to everything which seem plausible enough.
As much as I despise the current court, I would not expect them to rule in that fashion because this isn't an issue that's politically charged. Gorsuch is very much a letter of the law boy, so he'd rule in favor of existing law and the idea of making law more explicit if there are areas which can't be reasoned out. Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are all pro consumer rights, so they'd vote against EULA applying super broadly. My guess is Roberts would also vote in favor of consumer protection given his track record. Thomas could probably be bought off, but IDK if Disney would want to be associated with buying him off. Then again Thomas is against regulation in general so he might be fine with EULA of any scope. Barrett studied under Scalia, so she'll probably be against because Disney is too woke. Kavanaugh tends to lean team Gorsuch when it comes to word of the law so long as it doesn't violate his conservative principles so my guess is he'd also be against. It could be a 8-1 against Disney with those numbers.
But perhaps more importantly, they'd probably just not even take it up as an issue, and leave it up to the lower court unless the lower court gave an absolutely wild verdict.
I hope Disney’s claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.
I hope that it isn't thrown out. I hope it goes to court, and the judge, in their ruling, outlines precisely why a EULA for Disney+ doesn't apply here - reasons such as a single month of service not constituting an endless contract, a contract not being able to apply outside the bounds of the service regardless of the serving entity, perhaps even some comment on the scope of the EULA and what's allowed in a legal contract (especially when it's presented the way it is).
There is a massive opportunity for a judge, biased or not, to make it clear where the bounds of law, as it is currently written, apply and do not apply in this case without making any major decisions about the scope of EULAs themselves.
This is right in line with the other spots I’ve lived in the city (SoMa, avenues).
This is definitely normal for SoMA but down at 2nd st is approaching the financial district which is usually a bit quieter at night. I can understand someone who's just not used to it, or used to living in noisy parts of the city being upset or surprised about it.
But also 2nd/folsom is right at the bridge on-ramp which I would imagine is getting a fair deal of freeway noise 🤷♀️
This comment has been reported and mentioned a few times. As best as I can tell, the reporter wants to remind people that it can be dangerous to associate individuals with the decisions of their government. As a comparison - should all Americans be considered to be white nationalists while Trump was in power? Reality is often much more complicated. I would remind people on this instance that we should not victim blame, and that there are going to be people who are not in alignment with the structures of power that exist. I don't know how government works in Israel, but in the US our leaders often are not elected in line with what the populace thinks (when they do decide to vote), but heavily manipulated via Gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.
With all that being said, I think it's valid to have a strong criticism of a government committing genocide. I think it's also valid to criticize people who align with a government that commits genocide if they are not actively criticizing their own government over said genocide. I think it's important to voice our disgust with hate and hate based violence and to be strongly critical of individuals who don't share these values.
Thank you for the kind words. Not updating is not a decision we have taken lightly. I can't speak to the specifics because I'm not tech enough to fully understand them, but I believe part of the reason for updating has to do with that migration off Lemmy - that it changes the way data is stored and organized and because of such the migration process (moving comments, threads, etc. to sublinks) would need to be entirely redesigned.
I just want to say that @TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org did a great job explaining some of the issues with your reply, but there's a few things that I want to focus on in your reply.
It's easy to make the claim that you don't care about skin color, but it simply doesn't pan out. Here's a fairly long but comprehensive review on implicit bias training, which talks a bit about the prevalence and need for the training in the first place. In short, the literature proves that everyone has implicit biases - it's simply how our brains work. While some issues suffer from stronger biases than others, and the bias varies from person to person, it's always there.
The idea of "not seeing" race may be an appealing one to state, but it's an over-correction. Try telling someone in a wheelchair that you "don't see disability" and see how they react. They're not going to be happy. You absolutely see their identity. What you mean to say is that their identity doesn't factor into your decision, which as I just stated in the last point is objectively incorrect. At best we can work to minimize how one's identity shapes our decisions.
Racism can only have certain victims. Racism is the interaction between prejudice and power. The reason it's defined like this is the same reason we talk about the paradox of tolerance. Punching a Nazi is technically violence, but there's a difference between hateful violence and defensive violence. While you can classify people being prejudiced against white folks as racism, there's a similar distinction between prejudice and racism that applies here. To be clear, I do want you to be reporting any kind of prejudice that occurs on Beehaw, but we need to define and describe the differences because the inclusion of power and minority status are important here.
Just because you don't think something is a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. Someone who has a different identity than you, or who spends time in spaces you don't is sharing something. Telling them they are wrong or that they are imagining things is not a nice thing to do - if you don't think it's an issue, then don't reply. If you do think it's an issue, frame it differently - rather than accusing them of trying to shame white people, how about simply framing things through your own eyes. Don't say that they are trying to shame people, instead say this is making you feel ashamed or angry.
Hey dude, this is a trans space. You should not barge in and start fighting trans people. That's not nice be(e)havior. If you want to engage with people you don't understand, you need to do so by treating them with good faith and listen to them.
I'm going to treat you with good faith and assume you were using "cool man" in the same way someone might say "that's just like your opinion man", as a saying, but I will remind you that this person has their pronouns in their display name and you need to respect them.
If you can’t show sympathy, are you different to him?
I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that's perfectly reasonable. I also think it's fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.
I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I'm a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.
Without proper studies on the damage of consistently high decibel sound exposure? We've got a lot of those... where do you think the guidelines around decibel exposure came from?
I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice
I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.
everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone
We don't know this, and we shouldn't assume this of the victim. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it's kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I'm not so certain it's a discussion that should even be entertained.
Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be "so shallow" to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying "she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed" to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It's not as one dimensional as you're painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That's abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.
I want to start off by saying that I agree there are aspects of the process which are important and should be learned, but this is more to do with critical thinking and applicable skills than it has to do with the process itself.
Of note, this part of your reply in particular I believe is somewhat shortsighted
Using AI to answer a question is not necessarily preventing yourself from learning and developing mastery and understanding. The use of AI is a skill in the same way that any ability to look up information is a skill. But blindly putting information into an AI and copy/pasting the results is very different from using AI as a resource in a similar way one might use a book or an article as a resource. A single scientific study with a finding doesn't make fact - it provides evidence for fact and must be considered in the context of other available evidence.
In addition, learning to interact with and use AI is a skill in the same way that learning to interact with and use a phone, or the internet, or an app are all skills. With interaction layers becoming increasingly more abstract (which is normal and good), people need to have skills at each layer in order for processes to exist and for tools be useful to humanity. Most modern tools require people who can operate on different levels with different levels of skill. While computers are an easy example since you are replying on some kind of electronic device which requires everything from chemists to engineers to fabrication specialists and programmers (hardware, software, operating system, etc.) to work, this is true for nearly any human made product in the modern world. Being able to drive a car is a very different skill set than being able to maintain a car, or work on a car, or fabricate parts for a car, or design parts for a car, or design the machinery that manufactures the parts for the car, and so on.
This is a particularly long winded way of pointing out something that's always been true - the idea that you should learn how to do math in your head because 'you won't always have a calculator' or that the idea that you need to understand how to do the problem in your head or how the calculator is working to understand the material is a false one and it's one that erases the complexity of modern life. Practicing the process helps you learn a specific skill in a specific context and people who make use of existing systems to bypass the need of having that skill are not better or worse - they are simply training a different skill. The means by which they bypass the process is extremely important - they could give it no thought at all or they may critically think about it and devise a process which still pays attention to the underlying process without fully understanding how to replicate it. The difference in approach is important, and in the context of learning it's important to experiment and learn critical thinking skills to make a decision of where you wish to have that additional mastery and what level of abstraction you are comfortable with and care about interacting with.