[meltyness]

Yeah, we're opining on a segment that I opined is excessively opinionated (i.e., opinions are confidently stated so as to be represented as facts, "half of teachers are using LLMs") but when you look, the "study" is just a bunch of opinion polls. So yeah it is, in the literal sense, the professor's opinion being represented as facts, thank you have a nice day.

[Braxton1980]

"confidently stated"

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

[meltyness]

I mean this is just one case, I didn't cherry pick this, I peeked at a few previous episodes to find an episode where there was indeed a professor for the feature interview.

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.

[Braxton1980]

> 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

[meltyness]

Did you watch the YouTube timestamp? Do you know the difference between audience and subject? Do you know that we don't all live in primary school? Can you list any 7 buzz words I've raised that didn't come immediately from the YouTube timestamp?