It got cut.
David Brooks isn’t representative of the Republican mainstream at the moment, but they’ve started getting more representative Republican counterpoints on their panels over the past few months, even after the republicans cut their funding.
They present a more reasonable, tempered, and charitable perspective on both political parties than any other major news outlet.
Culture war bullshit.
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies" - George Orwell
How do they do that and how do you know it's their intent?
Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism.
For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion.
I had to go back pretty far to find a professor, specifically, the first few were social outreach or labor organizers.
Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.
The last section is the most telling.
What's disturbing is that you're probably an engineer, like you know how to open PRs but also think the 2020 election was stolen. Maybe that explains why software has bugs
How? Because they stated their opinion and they think they're right?
As opposed to having an opinion you think is wrong?
>half of teachers are using LLM
This is their opinion based on a study that polled teachers? How is this unreasonable?
Determining popularity by polling makes complete sense.
You're just anti intellectual for political reasons. Also supporting Trump while not liking people who are opinionated and overly confident makes you a hypocrite
It's uninteresting because it's basically become a platform for regulatory capture. It's a wellspring of obviously non-universal ideas like, "there is no right way to integrate AI and primary education", "the federal government should subsidize ai access", or "only safe ai platforms should be permitted". I mean it's obviously their right to blather incessantly about it, I just think it's boring, and that's all I've said.
Maybe it's because I'm not a politician or a philanthropist, and I'm not required to tailor my actions to appease a large number of people subject to my will, but there's obviously better ways to approach that, like delegating and talking to people, who are local to the concern.
It's a nuanced and long term discussion and I think lots of the stuff that winds up in these interviews is really a local issue that's going into the wrong channel by well-meaning folks who don't understand government, or worse folks who are seeking to exploit government for profit.
And concretely, the interview doesn't focus on the book or the study, it's literally just an authoritative "intersectional" quiz about how AI/Education crosses with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,... a dumb question.
What's an "authoritative intersectional quiz"?
>Maybe it's because I'm not a politician or a philanthropist..
Your accusations were about professors so why are you bringing up politicians. Also a philanthropist doesn't have people under his control.
>...delegating and talking to people, who are local to the concern.... lots of the stuff that winds up in these interviews is really a local issue that's going into the wrong channel
What's a local issue that shouldn't be discussed on PBS? You were just discussing AI which isn't a local issue.
>because it's basically become a platform for regulatory capture
How? You used so many buzz words I believe you either used chatgpt to generate the response or you're a bot
I will be very pleased to see the back of all of you in my expatriate retirement.
As long as my social security checks arrive, you can trash this place as much as you like. Have at it.
As was recently revived, a pox on both your houses. May the intellectual rot of both parties hasten.
I'll prefer to see this at a distance.
[1] NPR generally has always had a liberal bias, but their professionalism was sufficient to keep them straight shooting. Even Justice Scalia used to listen to NPR News, at least as late as the aughts.
PBS on the other hand— while obviously coming from an institution that exists because of things liberals value— clearly puts a lot of effort into representing most mainstream views charitably. It’s almost like if Reuters had a daily news hour.