Habitually using your own machine for non-work tasks often lets you keep certain records of the research process which begat the work, even while the client/employer owns the work itself through SLA/NDA/AOI. This typically includes records contributing to general “personal expertise,” such as query history, bookmarks, generalized notes, and other non-proprietary information.

It also lends to an overall impression of professional sprezzatura when the client can only see a history of master strokes, without the nitty-gritty details of your autodidactic effort.

Habitually using your own machine for non-work tasks often lets you keep some of the research process which begat the work, even while the client/employer owns the work itself through SLA/NDA/AOI. This includes anything considered akin to personal knowledge, such as query history, bookmarks, generalized notes, and other non-proprietary information.

It also lends to an overall impression of professional sprezzatura when the client can only see a history of master strokes, without the nitty-gritty details of your autodidactic effort.

My guess would be drain installation. It appears to be the minimum grade of a field with potential for a lot of runoff.

Assign it as a research collection task to a junior dev and forget to follow up.

(Fr tho, auto doc frameworks and related instrumentation are easily worth weeks. I will fight your manager.)

I think he meant ‘first’ as in top-most, the one with the preemptive disclaimer.

Pre-print

Especially when it’s between you and the ground

I’ve wondered if robotics could allow people with severe disabilities the chance to remotely participate in some normal activities in the real world. A food service job is one of the most boring options I can think of but it’s probably about as “normal” as it gets, especially for a young person wanting to be with friends outside school.

Generally I’d be more at ease with larger bots roaming about if I knew it gave someone the chance to do something they couldn’t do otherwise, rather than some AI vendor a/b testing their latest model live in my vicinity.

Forever alone.

Oh, I was actually disagreeing from an educator perspective, I just entertained some of their arguments in case they were serious.

Edit: apparently the whole post was bad faith drivel. I didn’t know anything about the site until now. Will delete comment.

I can entertain the classism argument if they reframe it as a choice, where the alternative is expanding the scope of what is currently considered plagiarism to include the degrees of ghost-authorship privilege buys, since their argument hinges on the assumption that it is acceptable.

The ableism argument is the one I’ve grappled with the most from the standpoint of disability advocacy. Usually we first must ask whether the achievement in question is the proper measurement. In this case it is quite simply creative origin, which might be difficult to deconstruct further without reaching for the terribly abstract. Next comes the more complicated task of determining the threshold beyond which a simple modifier, like a sports handicap, is simply no longer sufficient, i.e. whether such differing abilities merit a separate category with unique standards. In this case, they provide several examples of cohorts with great enough support requirements that AI assistance might be the only option available for participation. Such differing ability would, I think, suggest the formation of a new category with differing standards as a beneficial compromise.

The issue of systemic unfairness is a larger one, I think, than the matter of AI’s use can address. When we are looking for ways to mitigate systemic unfairness, usually it’s preferred to relieve each disadvantage directly and surgically by accounting for the cumulative impedance and ongoing support necessary to give them a fighting chance. What is not preferred is to actually fight their battles for them, however, and that happens to be what the latest LLM’s are capable of: robust human-like authorship with minimal prompting.

Ultimately, I think the real solution to the issue of AI in the liberal arts will be to adapt our notion of what an essentially human achievement entails, given the capacity of current technology. For example, we no longer consider mathematical computation an essential human achievement, but rather the more abstract instrumentation of it. Similarly, handwriting is no longer a skill emphasized for any purpose other than personal note-taking, as with off-hand recall of vocabulary definitions and historical dates. What we will de-emphasize in response to this technology is yet to be seen, but I suspect it will not be creative originality itself.

Yourself. Time and resources you invest in yourself usually grant the highest returns in the long run.

Examples:

1. When job hunting, prefer opportunities that give you more valuable experience when possible.
2. While planning your schedule, give highest priority to activities that contribute to your physical and mental health.
3. At the grocery store, choose fresh ingredients over the cheaper and easier premade options.
4. When budgeting finances, pay yourself first by setting aside what you can for your future. If not yet possible, see 5.
5. Invest in your continued education, which can include traditional credentialing such as degrees or certifications, but also online and night classes, or even self-guided study.
6. Choose relationships and experiences over things. While things can temporarily improve lifestyle, relationships and experiences permanently expand the life you have lived.

Comrade’s parachute

All good brother

Still I’m inclined to feel for them, the way I felt for people in the UK during Brexit, Canadians when their labor rights are eroded, Russians when their government rigs their elections and media, Chinese when their government persecutes them, and so forth.

I suspect it’s often not a majority of citizens pushing through these harmful policies. Even when it is, I blame lack of education and larger hostile actors who wage war against the masses with misinformation campaigns, election interference, etc.

The point is not that people themselves are entirely free of blame. It’s that human suffering always merits sympathy, and looking for reasons to disregard or rejoice in their just desserts isn’t a helpful impulse.

True though I’d give them props for accepting correction and actually thanking the source of it.

If everyone behaved that way, online spaces would be far less toxic and misinformation wouldn’t spread so easily.

problem is one caused by their own voting choices

Blame. Contempt. Not attacking. Showing you your self.

I don’t know any American farmers, but I suspect they have limited options of who to vote for, and even when they diligently vote correctly at every opportunity, their candidates are incentivized to betray them the moment they take office. The more important truth, however, is this:

When some misfortune befalls your fellow man, this instinct to bury pity with contempt hurts you more than it hurts them.

Also looks like a few enclosures on a lower shelf (which could be anything) but technically you can run WAN-exposed servers on most routers, not that it’s advised just possible.

Feels good to blame victims at a distance, doesn’t it