Yeah "berate" is probably strong, but given that one could donate *without* making it an object lesson, it just seems to be unnecessary

It's okay not to want to donate less than what you think is optimal, but using it to berate someone else who is probably on balance doing something good but suboptimal seems like bad form to me.

Emmie! Yay!!!!

Time is the other factor -- can you do it *quickly*? That's the distinction. Think of a jump versus a slow step up to the same height.

(But yeah, the practical answer is usually "lift something heavier" and "jump".)

Not that much of a sports science nerd, but "power" measures how quickly you can generate force. And that's just strength and neuromuscular coordination.

There's a lot of overlap, due to one sect marching through another

Chorus is literally turning to the camera and saying "this is bad"

I'm sure they'll have enough executive directors to manage it

My $0.02 is: this is what they'll do when their PhD programs get cut. Anything to avoid teaching.

See, my worry is that it won't be inferior for long. And I don't want to reinforce the idea (as a philosopher) that the reason to read Plato rather than let ChatGPT do it is only that ChatGPT gets it wrong.

So you need to either a) find a new way to test what you're trying to teach or b) restrict the testing/writing environment.

But there's a model! Math bans calculators in some contexts but not in others.

The challenge: sometimes the point of writing something is just to summarize something for other people. We used to be able to test one aim (can you think) with another (can you write.). But now it's much easier to automate that latter task.

To do that you implicitly accept the frame that the point of reading is to write summaries for other people. When AI can do that well, then there is no reason to read.

The reason to enforce prohibitions isn't because AI is cheating but because using it isn't accomplishing what you want.