datahack

You get the community we settle for.

Unimpressed.

More info here: https://www.icij.org/

As an aside, I would also ask this question: why not democratize this and make billions using the same loopholes so that everyone gains access or they are forced to fix it? Surely it’s a good startup opportunity.

Advertising intensely to us is the absolute best way to lose us as a customer.

Kids use AI like an operating system, seamlessly integrated into their workflows, their thinking, their lives. It’s not a tool they pick up and put down; it’s the environment they navigate, as natural as air. To them, AI isn’t cheating—it’s just how you get things done in a world that’s always been wired, always been instant. They do not make major life decisions without consulting their systems. They use them like therapists. It’s is far more than a Google replacement or a writing tool already.

This author’s fixation on “desirable difficulty” feels like a sermon from a bygone era, steeped in romanticized notions of struggle as the only path to growth. It’s yet another “you can’t use a calculator because you won’t always have one” — the same tired dogma that once insisted pen-and-paper arithmetic was the pinnacle of intellectual rigor (even after calculators arrived: they have in fact always been with us every day since).

The Butlerian Jihad metaphor is clever but deeply misguided casting AI as some profane mimicry of the human mind ignores how it’s already reshaping cognition, not replacing it.

The author laments students bypassing the grind of traditional learning, but what if that grind isn’t the sacred rite they think it is? What if “desirable difficulty” is just a fetishized relic of an agrarian education system designed to churn out obedient workers, not creative thinkers?

The reality is, AI’s not going away, and clutching pearls about its “grotesque” nature won’t change that. Full stop.

Students aren’t “cheating” when they use it… they’re adapting to a world where information is abundant and synthesis is king. The author’s horror at AI-generated essays misses the point: the problem isn’t the tech, it’s the assignments (and maybe your entire approach).

If a chatbot can ace your rhetorical analysis, maybe the task itself is outdated, testing rote skills instead of real creativity or critical thinking.

Why are we still grading students on formulaic outputs when AI can do that faster?

The classroom should be a lab for experimentation, not a shrine to 19th century pedagogy, which is most definitely is. I was recently lectured by a teacher about how he tries to make every one of his students a mathematician, and became enraged when I gently asked him how he’s dealing with the disruption to mathematicians as a profession that AI systems are currently doing. There is an adversarial response underneath a lot of teacher’s thin veneers of “dealing with the problem of AI” that is just wrong and such a cope.

That obvious projection leads directly to this “adversarial” grading dynamic. The author’s chasing a ghost, trying to police AI use with Google Docs surveillance or handwritten assignments. That’s not teaching. What it is standing in the way of civilization Al progress because it doesn’t fit your ideas. I know there are a lot of passionate teachers out there, and some even get it, but most definitely do not.

Kids will find workarounds, just like they always have, because they’re not the problem; the system is. If students feel compelled to “cheat” with AI, it’s because the stakes (GPAs, scholarships, future prospects) are so punishingly high that efficiency becomes survival.

Instead of vilifying them, why not redesign assessments to reward originality, process, and collaboration over polished products? AI could be a partner in that, not an enemy.

The author’s call for a return to pen and paper feels like surrender dressed up as principle and it’s rediculously out of touch.

It’s not about fostering “humanity” in the classroom; it’s about clinging to a nostalgic ideal of education that never served everyone equally anyway.

Meanwhile, students are already living in the future, where AI is as foundational as electricity.

The real challenge isn’t banning the “likeness bots” but teaching kids how to wield them critically, ethically, and creatively.

Change isn’t coming. It is already here. Resisting it won’t make us more human; it’ll just leave us behind.

Edit: sorry for so many edits. Many typos.

The prevailing counterargument against AI consistently hinges on the present state of AI rather than the trajectory of its development: but what matters is not the capabilities of AI as they exist today, but the astonishing velocity at which those capabilities are evolving.

It’s like scrolling through a group chat where everyone forgot the topic but kept texting anyway.

Honestly, it’s impressive how they’ve managed to create a platform that feels simultaneously too niche and too random.

Idk, I spent a few hours over a few days trying to find something cool about it, and couldn’t.

Your point about skepticism being warranted when viewing this linearly is well taken. But this isn’t a linear path. The Internet, at its core, was about connecting computers to unlock the value of those connections—a transformative but relatively straightforward concept.

What we’re dealing with now is the training of cognitive digital intelligence. This is an inherently dynamic and breakthrough-oriented process, one that evolves in ways far less predictable or constrained than simple network effects. While the metaphor of connectivity is useful, it doesn’t fully capture the parallel, multi-dimensional approaches at play here.

Pessimism, in my view, is deeply unwarranted, especially given the history of technological progress. Time and again, advancements have proven to be far more impactful and beneficial than even the most optimistic predictions. Consider the projections for AI in 2017—most futurists undershot its actual progress by an order of magnitude.

This research clearly illuminates a path forward:

https://ekinakyurek.github.io/papers/ttt.pdf

Deeply appreciate your thoughtful comment.

This methodological growth could make LLMs more reliable, consistent, and aligned with specific use cases.

The skepticism surrounding this vision mirrors early doubts about the early internet fairly concisely.

Initially, the internet was seen as fragmented collection of isolated systems without a clear structure or purpose. It really was. You would gopher somewhere and get a file, and eventually we had apps like like pine for email, but as cool as it was it has limited utility.

People doubted it could ever become the seamless, interconnected web we know today.

Yet, through protocols, shared standards, and robust frameworks, the internet evolved into a powerful network capable of handling diverse applications, data flows, and user needs.

In the same way, LLM orchestration will mature by standardizing interfaces, improving interoperability, and fostering cooperation among varied AI models and support systems.

Just as the internet needed HTTP, TCP/IP, and other protocols to unify disparate networks, orchestrated AI systems will require foundational frameworks and “rules of the road” that bring cohesion to diverse technologies.

We are at the veeeeery infancy of this era and have a LONG way to go here. Some of the progress looks clear and a linear progression, but a lot, like the Internet, will just take a while to mature and we shouldn’t forget what we learned the last time we faced a sea change technological revolution.

In other words, should someone with the capacity to administer an experimental treatment be held to a different standard than those without such expertise?

Let’s say an individual opts for a less effective or accessible treatment due to personal limitations or lack of knowledge: does this alter the ethical weight of their decision?

This question becomes more complex when treatments have varying degrees of risk and benefit.

If a treatment is simply an off-label, it often goes totally unnoticed unless it carries an unacceptable risk.

Under that condition, what happens when the treatment holds significant promise, potentially offering a curative outcome? But it doesn’t yet have medical trials? Does the prospect of a cure override the ethical concerns about its risks? Where is that line?

When faced with a life-threatening disease like recurring cancer, what is the individual’s responsibility to society in considering the ethics of self-treatment? Should she have accepted less effective therapy that had already lead to a failure condition for the good of the rest of us even though we are barely effected?

How do the potential benefits to the individual—such as survival—contrast with the potential societal harm, if any, in terms of bypassing established protocols or ignoring sanctioned research?

At what point does the line blur between personal medical autonomy and the ethical implications of self-administered treatments?

I really do wonder about these questions. I mean, the only difference between the ‘ivermectin cures cancer’ et al crowd and this lady is her degree of knowledge, so how do we deal with this ethically?

I think we need to greet this whole class of drugs with skepticism, if for no other reason than they’re being a pharma companies’ wet dream of a product. The incentives to interrupt their rollout don’t exist.

I’m aware of the wide range of benefits, and understand they may end up saving lives. But skepticism is warranted here.

This is conceptually essentially Moore’s law, but about every 5.5 months. That’s the only thing that matters at this stage.

I watched everyone make the same arguments about the general Internet, and then the Web, then mobile, then Bitcoin. It’s just a toy. It’s not that useful. Is this supposed to be the revolution? It uses too much power. It won’t scale. The technology is a dead end.

The general pattern of improvement to technology has been radically to the upside at an increasing pace parabolically for decades and there’s nothing indicating that this is a break in the pattern. In fact it’s setting up to be an order of magnitude greater impact than the Internet was. At a minimum, I don’t expect it to be smaller.

Looking at early telegraphs doesn’t predict the iPhone, etc.

Optimism is warranted here until it isn’t.

Given that he has been pretty reasonable about stuff like this in the past, I don’t find myself inclined to ascribe bad intent until I hear from him personally.

Seems like the kind of situation where only one person can answer.

Am I off?

For a lot of solo founders, though, it’s not just about visibility. It’s about support. Building something alone can be isolating, and sharing your progress becomes a way to stay connected, even when you’re grinding away in a room by yourself. The openness keeps you grounded and helps ward off the burnout that comes with long stretches of isolation.

It also puts you on the radar of other entrepreneurs and investors. They see what you’re up to and can offer feedback, partnerships, or even funding without you having to chase them down. You’re essentially creating a public portfolio of your work in real time.

Some people also use it as a humblebrag—a way to show off without being too obvious about it. That’s fine if that’s your thing, but for most, it’s a way to turn the lonely process of building into something more connected and human.

And I think that shouldn’t be discouraged.

For all the discussion, this was so mid it hurts.

I feel like people are poking the product release with a stick. C’mon. Do something.

It eventually becomes impossible to avoid doing business with them.

I think the progress has been pretty good. You should read up on their efforts.

This is kind of a pilot to develop further testing frameworks.

However, whether the judiciary in Brazil is actually overstepping or properly fulfilling its role is a matter of interpretation and context.

The broader and very much core question is whether the actions taken by the judiciary, such as censoring social media or jailing individuals without trial, are justified under the circumstances or if they themselves undermine democratic principles. This is the same basic issue I made my other comment about in your series of replies.

This is a nuanced issue that can be debated from different perspectives and much more of a subjective question, and it’s important to separate the issues.

They emphasize (in good faith I might add) that certain actions, such as censoring the opposition, canceling elections, or jailing people without due process, are inherently undemocratic and would destroy democracy if allowed, regardless of the intentions behind them. The argument is that democracy must adhere to its own rules and principles, even in the face of threats, because violating those principles in the name of protecting democracy ultimately leads to its destruction.

You can’t “protect Democracy” by violating its core tenants.

I feel like your arguments are more whataboutism than substantive.