Is this true?

I don’t disagree with you, and you don’t seem to disagree with me, as we’re both saying the same thing: You are not learning the thing you are trying to cut short with AI.

I’m wondering if the downvotes I’m getting really are for saying that AI can have its uses, and that exposure to AI can reveal those.

The point is to learn, and typing prompts into genAI isn’t learning.

I don’t agree 100%, and I’m still trying to find out why this line in particular stood out to me so much.

Will you allow me to twist your words a little to play devils advocate?

Pressing buttons in Photoshop isn’t learning.

Of course I agree with you that schools are for learning, and by prompting GenAI to generate an image, you don’t learn the basics of photography. But AI can be used as a tool, and usage of tools can be taught. So you still do learn something when using an AI, and that is how to use that AI. When to use that AI, and when usage of that AI does not help at all.

And I think that is what krisevol was trying to say. Students that know how/when/if to use AI for something, have an advantage over students that don’t have that knowledge.

This tweet is going to be 11 years old very soon!

For the anniversary I wish she would tell us what movies her boyfriend possibly could have meant, and how she liked them.

I trust you. But you also seem biased about somebody eating chicken, considering your name.

What are the requirements?

You are right, actually. I blindly trusted the computer to figure this one out, but just looking at it I found a better solution by hand. Maybe there really are some better solutions for the 22 monitors problem.

To answer your question: fitting more monitors into these gaps would not result in the optimal placement for that amount of monitors. 23, 24, and 25 monitors all have “expected” results. And closing the remaining gap would not result in a smaller bounding box square.

Here you go. 22 16:9 monitors.

I chose 22 monitors, because all other numbers have very expected results: