For Prodigy in particular, note that it is very much a kid’s show aimed at children. It’s fine Trek if you walk into it knowing and expecting that, but you need those expectations set beforehand. Think less “The Animated Series” and more “whatever Nickelodeon airs at 10am”.

No such disclaimer for Lower Decks. Jump right in blind. Works better the more traditional Trek you’ve seen.

Honestly most of the posts in this community don’t really fit the community

Ironically… so did I 🙃 But I hand-verified everything it said, and adjusted the quotes.

• “AI should serve as a scaffold for cognitive construction rather than a substitute.”
• “…the teacher’s role is shifting from knowledge transmission to instructional design and behavioral facilitation… Teachers must develop digital literacy and data fluency while acting as safeguards against over‑automation, ensuring that human judgment and educational values mediate AI adoption.”
• “…while AI offers efficiency and feedback advantages, traditional teaching remains essential for tasks requiring cultural interpretation, discourse depth, and emotional connection. A blended model—AI for repetitive or procedural tasks and teachers for critical discourse—appears most effective.”

This study explicitly does not advocate for replacing teachers with AI, and repeatedly cautions against doing so

My technique isn’t as refined as yours, I just add on a minimum of 2 minutes and hope for the best

For full disclosure, I don’t usually chew noodles, and that may be a big part of my preference here. Also my most common noodles are fettuccine and macaroni, but I do the same with spaghetti.

Al dente noodles are also unpleasant. Just cook them a minute or two longer.

Our internal slack channels contain more and more AI-written posts, which makes me think: Thank you for throwing this wall of text on me and n other people. Now, n people need to extract the relevant information, so you are able to “save time” not writing the text yourself. Nice!!!

I think this is one of your best bets as far as getting a real policy change. Bring it up, mention that posts like that may take less time to “write”, but that they’re almost always obnoxiously verbose, contain paragraphs that say essentially nothing, and take far longer to read than a hand-typed message would. The argument that one person is saving time at the expense of dozens (?) of people losing time may carry a lot of weight, especially if these bosses are in and read the same Slack channel.

Past that I’d just let things go as they are, and take every opportunity to point out when AI made a problem, or made a problem more difficult to solve (while downplaying human-created problems).

Their retraction article makes it crystal clear that their reporters are not allowed to use AI output in articles at all, unless it’s explicitly for demonstration purposes. That rule was broken. They took appropriate action, apologized, and made a commitment to do better.

I, frankly, believe them - ars is the news outlet I’ve frequented longer than any other for a reason. I understand if it’s going to take more for you to believe them, but it’s just one mistake. It’s also not clear to me what they could have done in this situation that would have felt like enough to you? Were you hoping for a play-by-play of who entered what into ChatGPT, or a firing or something?

I’m also not sure I’d consider the saga over. It wouldn’t overly surprise me if at some point this week we get a longer article going into more detail about what happened.

I think their response is perfectly reasonable. They took the article down and replaced it with an explanation of why, and posted an extremely visible retraction with open comments on their front page. They even reached out and apologized to the person who had the made-up quote attributed to them.

There are so many other outlets that would have just quietly taken the original article down without notice, or perhaps even just left it up.

My take on their comment was that they know this but consider it their ‘religion’ anyways because they don’t understand the process and so, in the absence of true understanding, take it on faith alone that the process actually works out

But the evidence is all around us even if you don’t understand the processes themselves: Science built us a moon landing, religion built us the dark ages

They can pass a bill all they want, but if they’re trying to regulate things like what a federal officer wears while on duty, it’s going to get struck down by the courts, in this administration or any other.

States have virtually no authority to regulate federal agents in that way. That’s why you don’t see laws like that.