Ask Lemmy

That AI (as in "generative AI") helps in learning if you give it the right prompt. There is evidence to support that when a user asks AI to implement code, that they (the user) won't touch it because they are unfamiliar of the code it generated. The AI effectively made a psychological black box that no programmer wants to touch even for a (relatively speaking) small snippet of code to a larger program, that was programmed by another programmer or him.

To further generalize, I fully believe AI doesn't improve the learning process, it makes it more accessible and easier for less literate people in a field to understand. I can explain Taylor expansions and power series simplistically to my brother who is less literate and familiar with math. I would be shocked that after a brief general overview he can now approximate any function or differential equation.

Same applies with chatGPT: You can ask it to explain simplistically taylor and power series solutions, or better yet, approximate a differential equation, it doesn't change the fact that you still can't replicate it. I know I'm talking about an extreme case where the person trying to learn Taylor expansions has no prior experience with math, but it still won't even work for someone who does...

I want to pose a simple thought experiment of my experience using AI on say (for example) taylor expansions. Lets assume i wants to learn Taylor expansion, ive already done differential calculus (the main requirement for taylor expansions) and I asks chatGPT "how to do Taylor expansions" as in what is the proof to the general series expansion, and show an example of applying Taylor expansions to a function. What happens when I try and do a problem is when I experience a level of uncertainty in my ability to actually perform it, and this is when I ask chatGPT if i did it correct or not. But you sort of see what I'm saying it's a downward spiral of loosing your certainty, sanity, and time commitment over time when you do use it.

That is what the programmers are experiencing, it's not that they don't want to touch it because they are unfamiliar with the code that the AI generated, it's that they are uncertain in their own ability to fix an issue as they may fuck it up even more. People are terrified of the concept of failure and fucking shit up, and by using AI they "solve" that issue of theirs even though the probability of it hallucinating is higher then if someone spent time figuring out any conflicts themselves.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The pilot wave theory makes much more intuitive sense, needs les hypothesis, was supported by a lot of famous scientist in the early days of quantum and is mathematically equivalent.

That there is nothing after death. That praying is pointless. I'm not a Christian as such, and I've no interest in debating the topic. I just find confident absolutists slightly annoying, be they religious fundamentalists or obnoxious atheists. Not that I'm saying all atheists are obnoxious, but there's a certain angsty teen attitude that will assert that there's nothing after death and I find it slightly arrogant.

Epstein killed himself. (same for Gary Webb)

Too many people think suicide is rare, or extreme act. But it's common as dirt especially for people who's life is ruined. It's a joke in movies that "new fish" looking at long sentences kill themselves, but somehow when it happens to someone notable, it's mysterious and suspicious.

Also, the idea that there was a conspiracy to murder Epstein in prison and cover it up by powerful people is an extraordinary claim with the flimsiest possible evidence.

Karma

The battle between socialism/communism and capitalism, in my POV both compliment each other. For the system to work as today there should be both types of countries.

A surprising number of people on lemmy seem to have this belief, which i think is unpragmatic: They think that to live ones life correctly, or to form a coherent society, one, or the society, must have a Set of Ethical and Moral Principles that crucially, has to be easily enumerable, and preferably named (Like, "The Ten Commandments"). These people also think that they do not have such a named Set, and that this is a really bad problem for them. I think having values is good. However, I think that worrying about how they might be inconsistent seems to be a kind of wild-card disscussion-ender ("Well to solve that problem, we'd first need to sort out Philosophy"), and that therefore, using this worry in any discussion but an abstract one is bad.

(For the society part, holding way too high standards for the Set also creates weird Cultural Homogeneity problems, which irks me.)

If you believe something adjacent, which Sets of values count for you? The Ten Commandments? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or whatever Kant said?

The "Standard model" in physics. For example, just look at how that 'Hubble constant' is constantly changing! :)

Free Will

Materialism (as in, matter being the foundation of reality)

Words

that racism is still pervasive even in blue/liberal areas, they just hide it better, plus transplants(people who move to blue areas) often come from more conservative or moderate areas, during one of my speech writing classes in college people were telling thier backstory and thier was one saying they became more conservative when they moved here to west coast, plus we have the ones that escaped from "communist" countries, pretty obvious when was pratically sucking off the military/war effort that america does, during the end of BUSH 2nd term. plus the AA on asian violence and racism never truely get addressed in these blue area, it just gets swept under the rug by the media, for the sake of offending AA people.