101

They just keep coming up with even dumber ideas.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] foodandart@lemmy.zip 53 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

For Advait Paliwal, Brown dropout and co-creator of Einstein, there isn’t one. “I think about horses,” he said. “They used to pull carriages, but when cars came around, I'd argue horses became a lot more free,”

No, they didn’t become more free. They became unnecessary and were sold by the millions for food. The peak of the horse population was just shy of 22 million animals around 1910 and has fallen to 2 million today.

This guy’s an idiot, who would relegate millions of people to ignorance and ultimately irrelevance as they are left behind in greater numbers in an economy that demands ever more amounts of actual intelligence to thrive in.

Jesus, what a fool.

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 8 points 2 days ago

Wait really? For a window of time, we had horse meat on the menu?

[-] one_old_coder@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

It can still found in some places in France. It's quite good, a bit like beef with less fat.

[-] foodandart@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

Sold overseas, absolutely. Domestically, it's been a more.. controversial subject. https://priceonomics.com/when-americans-ate-horse-meat/

Horse leather (shell cordovan specifically) was for years used to make police belts and holsters - it's heavier than cow leather and more supple.

[-] nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

Still do in tons of places!

[-] bus_factor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I think you can buy a horse steak in most western countries, although most regular grocery stores don't carry it. You'd need to go to a butcher or a higher end store.

I bought a cut of horse steak in Norway around 2005. I haven't really looked for it since, so I don't know if they stopped selling it. It's often mixed into sausages as well, but labeled in a less obvious way.

[-] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Perhaps he should go to school.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 day ago

Sigh... my university has seen a jump in admisson marks the last few years, and every semester we have 30-50 students turfed out for generative AI assignments handed in. They even leave "generated by ChatGPT" in the text. Most courses are ending digital testing and reverting back to paper quizes and exams, because the cheating is getting worse, and easy to detect because we add in a bait question we know AI gets wrong.

Their high school teachers are telling them AI is the future. Tip for you kids: don't take career advice from someone who ended up a high school teacher.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I know several teachers, they're doing an important and increasingly difficult/thankless job. Fuck you.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I have former teachers that screamed at me for saying "typing is the future" wanting to relegate art classes to be a few lessons of how to prompt AI image generators. Just like how handwriting strengthens a lot of other skills (usually fine motor ones), art is also good at auxiliary skills. Of course it can be done wrong (Kodály method is infamous for reverse teaching to "force kids to count more"), but that doesn't invalidate it, and I personally hated writing for uncomfortable pencils and bad holding methods (was instructed to hold on the tapered off position "for better control" as strongly as possible).

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 25 points 2 days ago

Really hate the framing of the title, though the article is a bit more nuanced. AI may be able to "do your homework" in the same way a robot may be able to "eat your dinner", but it cannot do these things for you, only independent of you. No one can "do your homework for you" because the point of homework is to help you understand the information through exercise. Saying it's done because all questions were answered is like saying you had dinner because a robot removed the food from your plate. You are not getting the actual point of the exercise, the way you're not getting the nutrition from the food. You can argue about how helpful/nutritious the work/food is, but to argue that the work/food is not necessary is a blatant lie told to you by people trying to starve you.

This idea that "memorizing things is bad" and that memorizing can be offloaded comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of education. In order to understand things we have to know certain things. Even first had experiences are "committed to memory" so that you can draw from that information later. These people are attempting to rob others of an education and the ability to understand the world around them. I don't know how they can live with themselves.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Notably, these are the same people that drink Soylent.

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 4 points 2 days ago

I had originally written a Soylent reference but thought it too niche so removed it. Notable indeed.

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago

There's a difference between knowing things and memorizing them, though.

I agree on the broad notion that using reference is perfectly fine at all levels of academia. You memorize information by putting it to use. Repetitive reading with no application intended just for memorization is a massive waste of time.

That is fundamentally different to attending lectures, reading books or paper and definitely not the same as putting in the work of writing your own or doing your own research.

My concern with this idea is the same as my concern with every other attempt at a "disruptive" AI product: you can already do all the valuable parts of this with existing tools and the novel things this can do aren't particularly useful or something that chatbots do well.

By all means use AI tools to do schoolworks if and when they're useful. It's just that this doesn't sound like it is.

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 points 2 days ago

Though I think your first point is mostly semantics, I do it's ok if some things are expected to be memorized. What do you mean by:

Repetitive reading with no application intended just for memorization is a massive waste of time.

Is the class and test not the intended application? I bet most people who learn about DNA or Golgi bodies never apply that information outside of school. Most people who took an art history class had to learn about cubism and likely haven't uttered the word since. What about the difference between igneous and sedimentary rock? I think these classes are important, but you cannot expect people to have the time to build up an understanding of all of these subjects from first principles. At a certain point you have to memorize something. Even if you went to a volcano and watched the magma cool yourself, you'd still have to remember what the result is called. If a student can define a term and identify it in action when they see it, I don't think they need to have done any original research on it, and most coursework (lectures/videos/homework) gives them the tools to be able to define and identify it. It's about exposure and exploration, and for that kind of surface level understanding I think the coursework for most classes counts as sufficient "putting in the work".

What does useful mean in this context:

By all means use AI tools to do schoolworks if and when they're useful

My point is that they are not useful because they don't help you learn the material. What is the "valuable part of this"? It literally just does the work for them. AI repeatedly makes factual errors, so I wouldn't even trust it to rephrase something, much less teach it to me, especially when there are a lot of trustworthy educational tools and sites out there.

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

If the class and test is the entire intended application then what's the point? I mean, at least throw personal growth in there or something. If going to the gym made you fat and unhealthy we wouldn't go around telling people to exercise.

Look, my point is that you learn about things when you use that knowledge repeatedly. It's a chicken and egg situation and you do have to start from memorization (you wouldn't expect a medical doctor to look up the names of body parts until they just naturally stick, and you WILL have to learn some vocabulary from scratch to learn a language), but by and large if something is written down and you have access to it that's probably enough to learn it over time.

There's a bit of a sense that study has to be pain and work because... well, old people like to see young people suffer like they used to suffer, whatever. But man, I can tell you I learned far more from the teachers and professors that gave us something to do and the tools to do it than from the ones that showed up with a power point deck and asked us to memorize bullet points.

As for what AI is useful for... I mean, yeah, it's not a lot. That was my point. AI is decent at reminding you of things you sorta vaguely know but can't recall, does ok at summarization and at some coding tasks. Some of that is useful in school (I certainly would have spun up a OCR system instead of giving myself carpal tunnel cleaning up notes), but it's not much use for you if your job is to go to a lecture and... you know, learn from it.

I will say that they are not terrible teaching aids, though. Stuff like explaining language stuff, or answering specific, precise questions that you can otherwise verify are not terrible uses. And, as a very much amateur coder, AI haters may have to accept that I've actually gotten better at coding by myself via using a chatbot to fix my problems (if only because the chatbot sucks at doing the thing from scratch, so I still do the parts I can do). You can use reference and technology to learn stuff on your own, it doesn't matter if it's a chatbot or Wikipedia. It won't do you much good to try to have it replace you at doing the work if the point of the work is to teach you how to do it, though.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This seems like the same argument people had with calculators. We’ve had calculators, spreadsheets, cash registers for half a century now so why do the still teach math?

[-] Redstone1@lemmings.world 13 points 1 day ago

Sis is a teach and she tells me she used to let her kids listen to music when doin quiet work but had to stop because too many were using chatgpt

Fuck ai

[-] jtrek@startrek.website 7 points 2 days ago

The point of school is to learn stuff. Facts and methods. Teachers aren't typically asking you to solve math problems or summarize a story because they need the answers.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 7 points 2 days ago

Schooling in which you learn to do arithmetic, write reports, research and collaborate on projects will be replaced with reverse-centaur training, in which you are trained to respond to headset commands more quickly, preparing you to join the only remaining part of the workforce

this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
101 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck AI

6085 readers
1145 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS