Moved from lemmy.sdf.org to startrek.website.

  • 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 4th, 2026

help-circle
  • I thought that they were trying to get at the hypocrisy of using ai tools to detect ai writing, which has a dismal success rate and ends up with a crazy amount of false positives.

    I see that the growth of computer/digital testing directly led to student abuse of ai. Once students were no longer called on to write a blue book or even just generate responses to short answer questions, we failed our students. I understand that term papers and larger writing assignments have their place, but there really is nothing like being able to sit down and show your knowledge in an on the spot essay (at least for a lot of humanities courses where I see ai being abused).

    A systemic issue in this space comes from universities and licensing entities giving testing companies carte blanche to race to the bottom in terms of effective testing tools. For licensing, apprenticeship/mentorship and observation are always better indicators of on the job performance, but that doesn’t have the ease and profit margins of big bullshit testing, so companies would never go for it unless states mandated such pathways. With regard to a lot of current digital university testing, a lot of that was Frankensteined from existing licensing exam tools/strategies and similarly does not effectively assess student/candidate aptitude.

    Even if this was not the intent of the commentor, my argument is that carelessness and disingenuous/gatekeeping testing practices from universities and licensing institutions certainly bred a significant level of disengagement in students which leads to them phoning it in with ai slop. If we wanted rigorous work from our students, we should have kept the same standards for ourselves, collectively.













  • The main revolution I want to see is the rejection of ideas/cultures that isolate and divide us. I think if people are able to push past apathy and fear, we can make our communities and lives a lot more caring and growthful.

    Lots of other things need to change, but personal responsibility and stewardship of your own community can produce tangible results, show others that we don’t have to live in constant fear and anger, and eventually lead to more positive change.





  • I find more comfort in the real and tangible human experience. Most of us are caring and social creatures if we let ourselves be.

    I think that framework encourages people to become compassionate and kind because they know it’s all we have.

    At its best, religion adds a layer of coping which is not based in any reality. At its worst, it sets people on a path for alienation and seeing themselves and/or others as less than human (depending on the neuroses and likely trauma).

    Dealing with no easy answers throughout your life can bring you to many existential questions and even depression at times but, as long as you have the strength/support/self care to keep and adapt your sense of self, you will be stronger for that introspection.

    I choose growth.



  • I feel like this is a reasonable response. Early childhood is an easier time to regulate sugar intake and definitely developmentally crucial so you don’t want any extra unhealthy foods complicating things.

    I was raised similarly and have a pretty healthy relationship with sugar today. I just always worried about the kids whose parents freaked out about them having a soda at a birthday party when they were like 8 or something. I understand policing sugar up to maybe grade school, but past that definitely has a negative effect emotionally and can lead to kids bingeing when they’re cut loose.