Eventually, yes, I think it will be. Not yet though, the tech just isn’t strong enough atm. But an AI is resistant to the emotional toll, burnout and low pay that a real life therapist has to struggle with. The AI therapist doesn’t need a therapist.

Personally though, I think this is going to be one of the first widespread, genuinely revolutionary things LLMs are capable of. Couple more years maybe? It won’t be able to handle complex problems, it’ll have to flag and refer those cases to a doctor. But basic health maintenance is simpler.

This would be one of the best unpopular opinions posts Lemmy has had yet … if you had provided any reasons. Without reasons it’s just meh though.

tbf, discovering Uranus was a lot less deadly before modern icebreaking ships. Age of Sail ships did not do well down there, and the economic incentives of sealing resulted in quite a lot of casualties back in the day. Doing math and peering through telescopes is much safer.

Man, I thought they had a containment Instance.

Here’s a guy named Steve, eating and reviewing one of these humanitarian rations, in case anyone was curious:

https://youtu.be/iKfWQ3Sij68

And with really good sound quality too, since they’re also ASMR vids.

How does the media in a capitalist country work…?

1000 lb bombs are expensive. Napalm is cheap though.

You can’t escape the inter-connectedness of human body systems. Improve something somewhere, something else gets changed too. This is why being a doctor is so hard.

So, it’s only true from a 19th century understanding of science. Which a lot of people admittedly prefer, because of how simplistic it was. It’s a lot easier to feel like you understand things if you just ignore all the complex and hard parts.

it has the resources and will to outlast the West.

Yeah, they have sorely underestimated how entertaining dumb internet arguments can be.

tbf, kids content on youtube has been a shitshow for awhile. Here’s a short Folding Ideas piece on it, that’s equal parts surreal, sad and scary:

https://youtu.be/LKp2gikIkD8

Racism is often subtle, so my accusation is not one I can back with sound evidence. It’s a personal, subjective opinion. Nobody was ever blatant and outright. Much like how bullying among kids is often done with a degree of culpable deniability, where you never cross the line far enough, but make your opinions known in other, less confirmable ways.

No, I do not think the institution supported their viewpoints. I doubt they would have been fired though. For one, tenure prevents that. For two, diversity of opinion, even distasteful opinion, is permitted if one does not cross lines. Thought is not what gets policed, only behavior. Subtle behavior with culpable deniability is protected at the practical level, by simply being too difficult to enforce.

One problem with vids like this is the algorithm doesn’t know what it is. So, engaging with the stuff too much will open up some very dumb rabbit holes.

Speaking generally, using those two as very clear examples of a broader principle pertaining to all education and how it potentially intersects with ideology.

A great deal of modern study has been done on racism though, and how accurate it really is. The idea that racist attitudes are grounded in reality that gets suppressed is a standard conservative talking point. A quick google scholar search should reveal an avalanche of work dating back well over half a century that disproves this, though, much like with global warming.

No, afaik I did not have any outright crackpot instructors, though I definitely had some with racist attitudes on occasion.

Debate should not be stifled. Outright bullshit should be.

For instance, if someone wanted to argue that carbon dioxide does not contribute to global warming based on the current evidence, they should be reprimanded for being a crackpot, and cherry picking in support of their ideology.

If they wanted to conduct a study on whether or not carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, that would be fine. If they make any “accidental” mistakes in their study, however, they should not be upset when that gets revealed when others examine their work.

Or, take a lot of standard racist attitudes. If someone wants to make various racist arguments based on the pseudoscience of the German Nazi Party, they should be reprimanded for being a crackpot. If they wanted to replicate any serious studies of the matter (many of which were done in the ensuing decades), done with the appropriate strictness and rigor, or even devise their own, that would be fine. Again, however, if they try to twist the results to match their own ideological preferences, they should not be surprised if that gets revealed when others examine their work.

Lastly, the author of the article talking about “truth” makes my skin crawl. That’s a faith word. Truths belong in holy books. Education should be based on evidence. “Truth” should absolutely be banned in colleges, because truth is fundamentally unknowable. Unless you think Jesus should be the foundation of schooling or something. All we humans get is steadily improving understanding, always changing, always pursuing the truth, but never being arrogant enough to think we have actually fully arrived.

You did get me a little riled up a few posts ago. The switch to rationality vs irrationality was a good one. lol

You seem to have a proclivity for making sweeping generalizations and overarching statements. You’re not actually the God-King of the Universe, though, fyi. Regardless, I apologize for not meeting your standards for explaining my own anecdotal experiences.

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s something about this photoshop that makes it utterly amazing. Might be the hat.

I really hope this doesn’t start an actual cult. People don’t need much in the way of an excuse, you know.

I’m sorry, but if you want me to remain what you’d define as civil, you’re going to need to be reasonable, not ridiculous. You haven’t answered my question. Where does this belief all things are sourceable come from?

No, that’s a frankly absurd request. What is or is not “good” is not something sourceable, it’s an entirely subjective question. What makes you think everything has some definitive source?