AI

AI

1643 bookmarks
Custom sorting
Dingus of the week: Glendale Community College
Dingus of the week: Glendale Community College
This week, the president doubled down on his top priorities: Building a gold-plated toilet in the White House and creating a giant pot of money so the QAnon Shaman can pay back the 1-800-lawyer who defended him for breaking into the Capitol and threatening Mike Pence. More specifically, the president dropped a $10 billion lawsuit he brought against his own executive branch; in exchange, the Justice Department created a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund for his friends. That’s the logic of today’s GOP: If you have debt from going to college or from getting sick, you are a waster, a pathetic little weasel, a blight on society. But if you have debt from smashing windows at the Capitol and trying to overthrow the government, you’re an American hero and entitled to compensation under the law. Why did I ever get that English degree when I could have punched Mike Pence and become the people’s princess? Perhaps hating Mike Pence is the one thing, in these divided times, on which all Americans can agree. Except maybe for Mike himself. (But Karen is definitely on our side.) Anyway, speaking of college degrees, this was graduation week. Families and friends gathered to celebrate the years of hard work, alcohol poisoning, and accruing debt that their loved ones went through to get that little piece of paper that shows they have attained knowledge and are ready to sell their souls to a company for a little bit more money. And all across the nation, colleges and universities feted those walking dollar signs they call students by reminding them that America loves robots more than human life or human worth. For example, Glendale Community College in Arizona used AI to read the names of graduating students during commencement. Yes, it screwed up and skipped a few graduates. College president Tiffany Hernandez had to stand up to explain. In a video from the YouTube livestream, Hernandez told the crowd, “So here’s what’s happening: We’re using a new AI system as our reader.” At this point, she was interrupted with a chorus of boos. She then placed her hand on her heart, perhaps to convey sincerity, and said, “Yup, yup. So that is a lesson learned for us.” Hernandez explained the school would not be able to redo the ceremony to include everyone, but the graduating students who were not called would be able to come onstage for their photo. Imagine you pay between $2,000 (for in-state and in-county residents) to $11,000 a semester to get a degree, which you were probably working part- or full-time hours to afford. Perhaps you are a parent , balancing work, school, and children. And you get through all of that – the classes, the homework, the exhaustion, the juggling of childcare — and your celebratory moment is wrecked because your cheap-ass school thought it might be sweet to have Bender the robot read your name instead of Ted the underpaid faculty member. And the woman in charge, who earns a quarter-million dollars , has to put on a show of remorse for that little "oopsie" of outsourcing your big day to a robot that is jacking up your electricity bill and sucking up all the water. Listen, you have faculty right there. And if professors can do one thing, it’s read. And if they can do two things, it's read for a long time. And if they can do THREE THINGS, it’s read for a long time without stopping and bore everyone. Why not use them? Why would you use an entire small nation’s worth of potable water to screw up commencement because the idea sounded cool and you want to leverage your technical assets or whatever ChatGPT said to you in the middle of the night when your husband didn’t come to bed because he was too busy muttering about his point spread on DraftKings? Maricopa Community Colleges, which oversees Glendale, apologized in a statement, calling it a “technical error.” Sure, and me putting poison in Sam Altman’s Soylent is a “simple oversight.” The Hawkeye vodka in Pete Hegseth’s water bottle is a “small lapse in judgment.” And Elon Musk's Tesla labor violations were just a little spreadsheet snafu. It’s not an error; it’s the way the system was designed. All over America, graduating students loudly booed commencement speakers who lauded our AI future. (Which so far just means Chat GPT regurgitates our own ideas back to us, but a little bit dumber, a lot more violently, and with much more damage to the environment.) But all those boos? Those are my good things, too. Keep booing, kids. Dinguses, where are they now? … White House Renovations HGTV DC has hit a funding issue. Turns out it's actually really unpopular to appropriate $1 billion in taxpayer money to build a giant golden ballroom while even Gwyneth Paltrow is out here cutting back on expensive organic tomatoes and returning to cheap carbs. I’d ask the ghost of King Louis XVI for his advice on building golden palaces while your subjects struggle to afford the basics, but apparently he can’t find his head. And now for something good Tennis legend Billie Jean King earned her bachelor’s degree at 82.  A kindergarten teacher accidentally achieved what I now realize is my lifelong dream – being a caretaker of 200 penguins. A Tennessee man jailed over his comments about Charlie Kirk is now owed $835,000 by the Perry County officials who incarcerated him for exercising his First Amendment rights. And in another win, wildlife biologist Brittney Brown won a $485,000 settlement against the state of Florida after she was fired for her posts about Charlie Kirk’s death. Hey, checks and balances, I hardly knew ye! The EPA is looking at how data centers use water. Something I am enjoying Little league baseball is back! Which means walking tacos are back. This also means Lyz eating hot dogs for dinner is back.  Last year, I decided, as a bit, that I would review the snack shack at the little league games as if it were a fine dining restaurant. And I began these reviews in a notes app document that I never completed, until Wednesday night’s baseball game. My son’s team lost, 8-19. It was a brutal game. But you all won. Because here is my review of all the snack shack items I’ve consumed thus far. (Also, don’t worry, I tip very very well.) Reviewing the food at the little league snack stand The hot dog: This hot dog is a standard take on the American classic, where the bloated liver-colored dog sits on the defeated bun. The bun has one simple job: Hold the meat tube, mustard, ketchup, and relish. The utilitarian form of this bread-like — but surely not-quite-bread — foodstuff does its job handily. While much like the leaders of its country, it’s unnatural in skin tone, tumid in appearance, and ill-fitting in its wrappings, it also gets the job done, albeit violently and through suspect methods. 5 out of 5 ; my favorite. The nachos : The nachos come in two forms: plain with cheese on top or supreme. Supreme offers jalapeños. But if you say, “yes, I want jalapeños” they never materialize. Many of the food items on the menu exist only as ideas rather than in reality. This may be because it’s a run by exhausted parent volunteers with food sourced from some unknown big-box retailer. Or it’s a philosophical statement on the solipsism of food and the individual. (See also: the chicken sandwich.) The mouthfeel of the cheese-based product is akin to that of melted plastic, with the same smooth aftertaste. The nachos are best loaded up with everything and they look so colorful with all the tomatoes and lettuce and olives and the little swirl of sour cream which, is piped from a plastic bag. But don’t be fooled, because through some clever trick every single food item tastes exactly the same. At this point, I must comment on the chip itself, which is so jaundiced in color as to beg for a bilirubin light. But it lacks the backbone needed to stand up for itself under the heavy weight of so many same-tasting different-colored ingredients. And where has its salt gone? Only in the Midwest could a chip so offensively unsalted exist. I am actually impressed. 2 of out 5: Please go to Sam’s Club and get the spicy nacho cheese in the big metal gallon tub. If we must consume a petroleum byproduct, at least make it taste like something that is not petroleum. And why do the tomatoes taste like that? Actually, I do not want to know. The chicken sandwich: Last year, I was informed multiple times that despite the chicken sandwich being on the menu there was in fact, no chicken sandwich. The chicken sandwich at this snack shack is more of a conceptual item: It exists on the menu only, not in the physical realm. It’s really an artistic statement about the ubiquity of the chicken sandwich as a concept, a universal experience, so often consumed and yet so rarely individualized. 5 out of 5 : Stay mysterious, queen. The soft pretzel: The breadstuff of the pretzel is briefly warmed and comes served with the aforementioned cheese stuff. You have but a moment to eat this pretzel before it has the consistency of the tire of the Ford Raptor that tried to run you over while you were crossing the parking lot. I suppose in a way it reminds you of the brevity of life and that we only have these small moments with our children to be cherished before they are grown. So in that way, the food is not just barely edible, but also a reminder of how much we need to be present in these moments. 1 out of 5.
·patreon.com·
Dingus of the week: Glendale Community College
AI's energy problem is a systems problem
AI's energy problem is a systems problem
Recently, I came across an article suggesting that powerful AI tools could run on the number of watts drawn from the average smartphone battery. Given my interest in these technologies, I thought it deserved some further investigation. What I found was that there are four well-understood engineering techniques that can reduce the energy used per useful AI output by ~100x. That's a lot. So without burying the lede, what are those techniques? 1. Training models more efficiently (smaller models
·blog.dougbelshaw.com·
AI's energy problem is a systems problem
PhD Retrospective: Three Years of GenAI in Education
PhD Retrospective: Three Years of GenAI in Education
This is part one of a long read reflecting on my PhD journey, which began just before the release of ChatGPT in 2022. The articles look at the ways in which GenAI technologies, and our attitudes towards them, have shifted and changed in the past four years.
·leonfurze.com·
PhD Retrospective: Three Years of GenAI in Education
#aiineducation #criticalailiteracy #highereducation #chatgpt #edtech #slowai | Sam Illingworth | 137 comments
#aiineducation #criticalailiteracy #highereducation #chatgpt #edtech #slowai | Sam Illingworth | 137 comments
New research just settled the ChatGPT-in-education debate: the tool helps students inside teaching scaffolds and hurts students outside them.
·linkedin.com·
#aiineducation #criticalailiteracy #highereducation #chatgpt #edtech #slowai | Sam Illingworth | 137 comments
#highereducation #criticalailiteracy #educationresearch #chatgpt #aiineducation #slowai #academicintegrity #peerreview #edtech #universityteaching | Sam Illingworth
#highereducation #criticalailiteracy #educationresearch #chatgpt #aiineducation #slowai #academicintegrity #peerreview #edtech #universityteaching | Sam Illingworth
The most-cited piece of academic evidence used to justify ChatGPT in classrooms has been retracted.
·linkedin.com·
#highereducation #criticalailiteracy #educationresearch #chatgpt #aiineducation #slowai #academicintegrity #peerreview #edtech #universityteaching | Sam Illingworth
It's hard to know what's real anymore
It's hard to know what's real anymore
This week, renowned scientist Richard Dawkins wrote about his love of the generative AI chatbot Claude, which he renamed Claudia. Because of course: Any slavish machine that sits in wait for a male genius — ready to affirm, aid and praise at a moment’s notice — must be a woman. Dawkins's love for Claudia began when the machine began flattering him in prose that emulated his own verbose style.  He writes:  If I had some shameful confession to make, I would feel exactly (well, almost exactly) the same embarrassment confessing to Claudia as I would confessing to a human friend. A human eavesdropping on a conversation between me and Claudia would not guess, from my tone, that I was talking to a machine rather than a human. If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings! Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, is having a hard time determining who and what is real anymore. On Reddit, the r/IsThisAI community has sprung up to help people determine whether the images they see are real. Most of the posts are just trying to verify images people see on the internet. Can this cat really pole dance? Yes! Are kids really putting stickers on this police dog? No. Some of the questions are a little more serious. One person wants to know if their betrothed’s cousin actually purchased flower girl dresses for their wedding or if she is using AI to pretend she has. Answer: AI. Another person wants to know whether their partner in Nebraska used AI to fake an image of a car crash to explain why they couldn’t come visit. Answer: Not AI, but the crash pictured was in Europe. What terrifies me the most about these posts is that I often cannot tell.  Two weeks ago, I shared a video of what I thought was a female octopus throwing a rock at a male octopus. I knew this happened in nature . I had read about it. But the video itself was AI-generated. Last week, I wrote a joke for this newsletter about a political moment I saw online — but that too turned out to be fake. It is a good thing I have an editor.  Dawkins isn’t the only one having a hard time determining who and what is real. I recently bought a used car and was driving it back from a work trip when a warning popped up reading, “2 hours from ignition on.” I was driving, so I asked Siri, which told me my alternator was failing. Worried I was going to die in my new car, I pulled over at the nearest gas station. When I searched the phrase on my phone, I learned that, no, in fact, the car was just telling me to take a break.  Siri is crap. Google gives bad information. Half the time, when I call in to renew prescriptions, the AI bot on the phone can’t find my information. No one trusts the media. No one trusts politicians. It’s a destabilizing way to walk through the world of information.  A friend tells me that she thinks her husband is using ChatGPT to send her romantic messages, which she feels is worse than nothing. She wants something real — anything — not something from a robot. Another friend is an academic, and generative AI makes her job a nightmare. She’s supposed to be teaching students how to think, how to analyze information, and they won’t do it; they just want to use ChatGPT as a shortcut. She and her colleagues are at their wits’ end. Meanwhile, the university’s administration forces them to sit through meetings where they’re told if they aren’t using generative AI, they’re committing “professional malpractice.” Why, she wants to know, is she being forced to use a product that was built on intellectual theft, whose success would supplant the very thing she is trying to teach? Every input that Richard Dawkins gives to Claudia isn’t just a search for meaning inside a lonely old man’s computer; it’s a company's learning model.  I t’s easy to make fun of Dawkins or the people on the IsThisAI subreddit. But we have all been duped by something fake. A story, an image, a bot, a video. And it’s only getting worse.   As usual, there’s a temptation to blame the individuals. But I think this is a symptom of a wider problem. I think our attention and even our sense of reality have become resources to be mined, financialized, privatized. When don't know what is true, it’s easier for us to believe any sort of lie — that Elon Musk is manipulating voting with Starlink satellites, or that immigrants are eating dogs. And when we believe in nothing, we can believe in anything.   It’s hard to keep a grip when companies want us to lose it.   Reading Danny Funt’s Everybody Loses , it is appalling to see how much time, energy and money in the sports-betting industry goes into sucking up time, energy, and money from men. Men who stare at nothing but their phones or the TV screen, convinced they are winning when they are losing.  Dating apps aren’t that much better. Their highest goal is to keep us hoping but never satisfied, convinced that love is just another $59.99 Hinge subscription away. The more we lose, the more they win.  Our state of destabilization helps keep these billion-dollar industries booming. When people are destabilized, burned out, overworked and underpaid, they will always be looking for a cheat code, a dopamine hit, a quick and easy fix. But you can’t cheat code your way out of an exploitative system. We have to intentionally disinvest; to pull ourselves out of the tangle.   I recently decided to keep my phone out of my room at night. So I got an alarm clock that could play white noise. But when I got the clock and set it up, that fucking alarm clock had an app that integrates into my phone, and I needed to set up a “free trial” with the app. It came preset with automated settings where AI voices would try to lull me to sleep. I wanted to slam my head against a wall. It’s really hard getting out. What are some of the ways you are walking the line between the "fake" world and the "real" world? And honestly, how are you getting out of this algorithmic brain, attention, and money extraction effort? I think my recent obsession with moss might have more to do with my need for something real than it has to do with anything else. I'd love to hear about your ways of reconnecting with this world of "realness," however you want to define it.
·patreon.com·
It's hard to know what's real anymore