Kind of, right? That depends on a great many assumptions, and if you adjust them slightly, you get a different result. For example, if the U.S. were to switch from SUVs to small sedans and hatchbacks, the CO2 savings take many more years to obtain.
In other words, OK sure go EV, but the main targets should be what they always were: drive less, and drive small cars. Oh, and don't be fooled into thinking EVs solve a problem when they don't.
American exceptionalism is only in Americans' heads, the patriotic suckers out there.
In reality this is about rich assholes trying to figure out where to stash their dough, and they're hedging their bets. Good for the world, to some degree.
Please? Please diagnose with it? I will frame that shit, put it on the wall forever.
Pop the bubble already. Fuck all the investors, they are gambling on snake oil and that's their problem.
I would be worried that this is one piece of an AITA post, and we're missing the key info because you didn't want to share it with us. If it is, YTA.
If it isn't, then ... occasionally, not too often, back when I had a girlfriend.
There is plenty wrong with generative AI as a tool if you think of it in those terms.
I would say that if the depth of analysis is limited to "AI" or "genAI" then use of it in schools is overwhelmingly bad. If that's the limit of our ability to frame the issue, then banning AI would appear inevitable, and any graded assignment that might encourage AI use should be banned.
But if you want to break things down, you can find specific tools (i.e., calculators, grammar checkers) that could be labeled as AI or specific uses of genAI (i.e., brainstorming) that have use. And it is this latter approach -- clearly identifying positive uses -- that is difficult for students, media writers, and apparently policy makers to do.
Yes and no. Remember that rich kids could always hire ghost writers. ChatGPT made that available to the masses, but that particular problem goes back centuries.
What we have seen is that the curriculum is often decided by a distant committee who actually doesn't understand life on the ground. In reality, there are easy ways for teachers to undercut the utility of ChatGPT, if they have the freedom to make changes. But that depends on teachers having control and the time to make changes to how they teach.
This might also flop in court. When the feds don’t regulate a thing, often they cannot stop the states from doing so. But details matter.
The lawsuit claims it based on very good evidence, including witness testimony.
He knew that DOGE was a joke from the start. Everyone did. You know how we know? His complete lack of research. Anyone, even an elementary school student, would ask how something works before taking a hammer to it… But only if they cared to get it right, right? And look at what DOGE didn’t touch. Military waste, dirty cops, etc.
He’s not gone, though. They lie constantly, and of course about this.
Well that's not true. Rural areas are typically majority conservative, but mid-size cities and suburbs are typically closely split conservative vs. not.