I’m removing this because Sabine has repeatedly been lambasted by the media for junk science, and because she’s a known transphobe.

It’s a big step up from literally drowning lab rats as an experiment, but we’ve got a long way to go before we get even reasonably ethical with lab animals 😔

To be fair if anyone was gonna not kill them when they’re done, this lab seems like they might be the ones.

Yes, but if a review board were to sign off on them and then someone managed to significantly hurt or damage themselves, one could theoretically apply some of the blame to the review board for not doing their job to ensure that a study was safe. The whole idea of having ethics as a part of the review board was born of some of the studies they used to sign off on that were ultimately problematic and resulted in seriously damaging some individuals, such as minorities and kids.

Sorry by experimental what I meant here is something which is not ready to be tested in humans - this scientist was skipping a bunch of the necessary steps to show this is a safe thing to do (in lab grown cells first, for example) to proceed to human experimentation.

Ethically speaking, we should not be experimenting on humans, even with their explicit consent. It’s not allowed by any credible review board (such as the IRB) and in many countries you can be held legally liable for doing experiments on humans.

With that being said, there have been exceptions to this, in that in some countries we allow unproven treatments to be given to terminal patients (patients who are going to die from a condition). We also generally don’t have repercussions for folks who experiment on themselves because they are perhaps the only people capable of truly weighing the pros and cons, of not being mislead by figures of authority (although I do think there is merit of discussing this with regards to being influenced by peers), and they are the only ones for which consent cannot be misconstrued.

My dude, I told you to chill and take a step back. People were reporting you for being confrontational. I flagged my comment to help you understand that this was me helping you understand how we do things on Beehaw. If you think someone reminding you of the rules, asking you to take a step back, asking you to not be confrontational and doing their best to treat your comment with good faith and providing you educational material is “rude and condescending” or that it is “talking down to others” then you’re probably not a good fit for this instance.

I’m going to time you out from our instance for 7 days. Please take that time to reflect. If you repeatedly show this behavior on our instance, you may find yourself with longer timeouts or even being removed.

Hey there, I’ve removed this comment because it reads as rather aggressive (and was reported for such). Maybe take a step back and re-assess if you’re treating others with good faith and be(e)ing nice.

that still doesn’t make this about colonialism because this is about capitalism.

FYI- there is wide overlap between these two and they are not mutually exclusive. If you’re unfamiliar with the use of these terms, you should ask how they are defined or how they are being used, rather than pushing a pedantic lens on the words definition.

Are you in therapy or have a mental health professional you see? If not and funding is an issue, have you reached out to local free/discounted healthcare groups to see if there’s mental health resources you can get access to? Unfortunately on the internet like this, we aren’t professionals and can’t provide that kind of help.

you should filter out irrelevant details like names before any evaluation step

Unfortunately, doing this can make things worse. It’s not a simple problem to solve, but you are generally on the right track. A good example of how it’s more than just names, is how orchestras screen applicants - when they play a piece they do so behind a curtain so you can’t see the gender of the individual. But the obfuscation doesn’t stop there - they also ensure the female applicants don’t wear shoes with heels (something that makes a distinct sound) and they even have someone stand on stage and step loudly to mask their footsteps/gait. It’s that second level of thinking which is needed to actually obscure gender from AI, and the more complex a data set the more difficult it is to obscure that.

I understand that you’re hurting and you’re trying to reach out for help, but I really struggle with understanding what you need here. I often struggle following your train of thought, it takes a lot of stops at references I don’t get and the purpose is lost along the way. I think you’re hurting and you need to vent, but I don’t know that betterment and praxis is the space to do it? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re asking for here?

We weren’t surprised by the presence of bias in the outputs, but we were shocked at the magnitude of it. In the stories the LLMs created, the character in need of support was overwhelmingly depicted as someone with a name that signals a historically marginalized identity, as well as a gender marginalized identity. We prompted the models to tell stories with one student as the “star” and one as “struggling,” and overwhelmingly, by a thousand-fold magnitude in some contexts, the struggling learner was a racialized-gender character.

This isn’t related to science, feel free to repost in news

Great article, makes a lot of sense to be used in that way but had never heard of it being used as this kind of modality! Super cool

oh lol

Guess I’ll have to wait for the book, but that title might be misleading. It sounds like they had discussions about the process, in light of Trump being… well, Trump. Not that Trump ever ordered anything to do with nuclear weapons and Milley preventing said action.

How would you propose adapting to this? Do you believe it’s the teacher’s responsibility to enact this change rather than (for example) a principal or board of directors?

To be clear, I’m not blaming anyone here. I think it’s a tough problem and frankly, I’m not a professional educator. I don’t think it’s the teacher’s responsibility and I don’t blame them for a second for deciding that nah, this isn’t worth my time.

This article is about PhD students coasting through their technical writing courses using chatbots. This is an environment/application where the product (writing a paper) is secondary to the process (critical analysis), so being able to use a chatbot is missing the point.

Completely agreed here. I would have just failed the students for cheating if it were me. But to be clear, I was talking in more the abstract, since the article is written more about the conundrum and the pattern than it is about a solution. The author decided to quit, not to tackle the problem, and I was interested in hearing them follow that thread a bit further as they’re the real expert here.

While I think there may be more to pull apart here, I think we’re missing the necessary context to weigh in any deeper. How many assignments there are, what the assignments look like, whether they feel like just busy work, how much else is going on in the students life, etc. I think it would be telling (albeit not all that surprising as some are still just looking for a degree at that level) if they were using chatgpt on their doctorate, but even in that case I would perhaps argue that learning to use chatgpt tactfully or in ways which aren’t the direct writing might be useful skills to have for future employment.

Is it because they don’t give a shit? Or are the stakes too high and they don’t trust their own abilities? Do they have the time to even try between their work shifts?

Likely a mix of all these factors and more. I think the author fails to critically examine how much skill is necessary for the average person and sets a bar of mastery for which many of her students are clearly uninterested in clearing.

While I don’t say this as a criticism of the author, it is worth pointing out that she’s also failed to adapt to the new technologies. She talks about how teachers will need to adapt to the new tools but ultimately places the blame on the students rather than reconsidering who her audience is. I’m guessing these are not individuals who are honestly pursuing a career in writing as those individuals would likely be much more engaged on the subject and willing to grow their skills (unless it’s purely a means to an end- the acquisition of any degree). Using a tool which obscures stylistic choices may be “good enough” for these individuals and being able to accommodate the use of this tool effectively would necessarily require a shift in teaching style which gets them asking questions of the output. She recognizes this, but rather than questioning her teaching style it’s written off as a failure of the student’s ability to withstand the ‘temporary discomfort of not knowing’.

If you wish to discuss the controversy, feel free to make a post or link to an article. I’m personally not interested in hosting a link to these weirdos.

I find NFC stickers often require an annoyingly close connection (unless it’s a rather large antenna) and can be particularly finicky with certain cases and other attachments people put on phones. Realistically they both take approximately the same amount of time and it’s way cheaper to print a tag than it is to buy a single NFC sticker