I just want to point out that even you qualify these benefits.

It MAY ease symptoms. Or it may not. It may EASE symptoms, but it won’t get rid of them entirely. It may ease SYMPTOMS, but it’s not a cure.

They’re like on the first page of results of anyone who has depression when they look up how to break out of it, so there’s an incredibly high likelihood you’re not the first person to discover hydration and exercise. They also don’t work for everyone, so it can be especially disheartening to hear the same advice over and over when it hasn’t worked for you in the past. It starts feeling like no one listens before they give the same ‘hydration and exercise’ mantra.

Because there’s no “wrong” answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.

It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.

Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.

Seriously. Someone never clicked on the “you are an idiot” popup that auto-played music, moved around the screen, prevented task manager from opening and cloned itself if it was closed.

Except you’d also have to factor it county-by-county with how long it would take to drive to a state where there is no ban.

It’s the same with guns. If your neighbor won’t ban it, it’s not really a ban. It’s an inconvenience charge that only the rich can afford to pay.

Didn’t the guy who originally posted the “1:1 model comparisons” later admit that he stretched and scaled the models to fit better?

It’s derivative, but not a ripoff.

“Thoughts and prayers”

If only something allowed you to use the typing system you already know, was able to be rolled up, doesn’t require you to already own a 3D printer and have knowledge of modeling software, and cost less than $50.

If only…

I think what will hurt worse is that the genocide is still talking place and his sacrifice didn’t move the needle as much as he would have expected.

That’s not the fault of the user/students, though. They’re different tools. One is outright worse than not using it. Neither produce lasting benefits.

Headline: Screwdrivers better than hammers for screws.

Text: When craftspeople were trained using hammers with screwdriver bits duct-taped to them, they were able to perform the task, but were not able to keep pace with people using screwdrivers. Another team was given power drills, which were effective in practice. However, these did not produce any benefit once all people were given screwdrivers.

“What? You scared?”

The study shows that once you remove the LLM though, the benefit disappears. If you rely on an LLM to help break things down or add context and details, you don’t learn those skills on your own.

I used it to learn some coding, but without using it again, I couldn’t replicate my own code. It’s a struggle, but I don’t think using it as a teaching aid is a good idea yet, maybe ever.

You skipped the paragraph where they used two different versions of LLMs in the study. The first statement is regarding generic ChatGPT. The second statement is regarding an LLM designed to be a tutor without directly giving answers.

Everyone should read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

It was written almost 120 years ago, and shows just how horrendous these working conditions used to be before the FDA existed. Everyone who wants to cripple the ability of the FDA to regulate these plants wants those kinds of inhumane working conditions back.

It has a socialist message in the second half, but remember - socialism doesn’t replace democracy. Socialism replaces Capitalism.

So yes, I’ll concede he is making plans to leave the country

I had considered editing my comment to reflect the fact that he did not make plans to leave.

You don’t get to have it both ways. How you’re unable to discern that is too much for my brain. Have a good day.

You admit he’s a liar, and that he’s making plans on leaving the country so why trust him when he says WHY he says he’s making those plans? Again, he’s a convicted felon who has yet to be sentenced. For being a stickler on ‘context’, you seem to be ignoring that part.

Also, are you going to edit your initial comment to admit that he did make plans to leave the country now that you conceded he did?

Her HUSBAND signed the terms + conditions for a free 1 month trial. They’re claiming that he can’t sue for a wrongful death on her behalf because of THAT.

You claimed he never made plans to leave the country, so I posted his exact quote where he makes plans to leave the country and now you’re claiming I’m misquoting him?

He’s a convicted felon who has yet to be sentenced making plans to leave the country. Why didn’t you mention that in your list of other factors and context we could be talking about?

*in another country *if he loses the election

That’s fleeing.