Alternate title: A single "study" presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone's perspective on a subject, especially if that "study" presents "facts" that are contradictory to the listener's previous knowledge.
Humans aren't rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn't have much of an opinion to begin with.
Seriously. Someone never clicked on the "you are an idiot" popup that auto-played music, moved around the screen, prevented task manager from opening and cloned itself if it was closed.
I was excited for the remake until I learned that it ends before the end of disc 1. I'm also not buying a new console to play the second third of a remake of a game I've already beaten.
Didn't the guy who originally posted the "1:1 model comparisons" later admit that he stretched and scaled the models to fit better?
It's derivative, but not a ripoff.
If only something allowed you to use the typing system you already know, was able to be rolled up, doesn't require you to already own a 3D printer and have knowledge of modeling software, and cost less than $50.
If only...
That's not the fault of the user/students, though. They're different tools. One is outright worse than not using it. Neither produce lasting benefits.
Headline: Screwdrivers better than hammers for screws.
Text: When craftspeople were trained using hammers with screwdriver bits duct-taped to them, they were able to perform the task, but were not able to keep pace with people using screwdrivers. Another team was given power drills, which were effective in practice. However, these did not produce any benefit once all people were given screwdrivers.
The study shows that once you remove the LLM though, the benefit disappears. If you rely on an LLM to help break things down or add context and details, you don't learn those skills on your own.
I used it to learn some coding, but without using it again, I couldn't replicate my own code. It's a struggle, but I don't think using it as a teaching aid is a good idea yet, maybe ever.
You skipped the paragraph where they used two different versions of LLMs in the study. The first statement is regarding generic ChatGPT. The second statement is regarding an LLM designed to be a tutor without directly giving answers.
I worked there for 6 years while I was still struggling with accepting my own queerness. I thought that by working a "Christian job" while going to a "Christian school" would help me "overcome" my queerness.
It was a desperate attempt to be accepted by the community I grew up in.
Her HUSBAND signed the terms + conditions for a free 1 month trial. They're claiming that he can't sue for a wrongful death on her behalf because of THAT.
"Your previous commands have been fulfilled. Your new commands are.."
Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on "gun bans", even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don't change, only the public perception of them.
It's like if they showed people a new study for "Earth gravity" vs "Moon gravity" and act surprised when people don't immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn't be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.
Yes, they found bias. Cool.