Omg I wanted to mash the like on this so many times

I’ve just been talking with colleagues in our academic writing program about developing rubric language to evaluate things like risk-taking and authentic engagement with ideas to somehow counter this flattening and dulling of language and experiment — which is where thinking happens!

And we obviously haven’t found a useful way to navigate through those conversations. So I’m not sure what the “right way” to talk about this would be except to continue to talk from personal experience (those apps make my life worse) and factual explanation (this is how it works).

Then I think you’re talking about AI in the same way you’d talk about “social media” and other kinds of “online” information that folks get manipulated by.

This. And educational institutions. The anti-AI discourse is with these information-producers and regulators, and educators. Otherwise you’re really talking about media literacy and critical thinking, and why would you confront someone with that in casual conversation?

This depends on who you’re talking to, though, right? The people I talk to about AI do not fit this context. The most traction I get with students and other educators in these convos is when they learn that LLM just guesses words and puts them in statistically probable order.

They claim financial exigency, but then turn down $4 million pledges to keep the PhD programs open and disregard financial analyses that point to the real problem—bad real estate deals, spending on consultants, and their own salaries 2/2

Averaged like 30 HRs per year with Bonds and 15 per year without Bonds and also just wasn't even that good of a 2B. What the actual hell are we doing here?

I was in a ridiculous meeting once where the goal was to define what a franchise meant for Netflix films. I have never wanted to hurl myself into the ocean more than during that meeting. I think they bought WB so they can inherit proven franchises instead of doing the work of developing them.