Yes, you do. All teachers need to understand the tools their students are using in class, especially if the teacher is ALSO going to use that tool. Five minutes on Google would’ve informed this professor that ChatGPT can’t identify its own output. His problem wasn’t that ChatGPT is too technical for any non-specialist…

I was contesting your comparison that this is the equivalent of “a computer science professor, expected to equally understand best cyclical farming practices.” You don’t need to understand the theory of LLMs to understand what they can and can’t do for you - your comparison is way off base.

The problem is not that a professor doesn’t understand the theory behind LLMs. It’s that he assumed that he DID know that ChatGPT could do something that it can’t do (i.e. accurately tell you if it wrote a sample of text).

Uhhh... no, actually, you’re being breathtakingly naive. Criticism of Soros has ALWAYS been about antisemitism - there is no rational critique of him. Inform yourself before spouting off.

That’s because you were paying more attention to cultivating your misogyny than to absorbing the actual story. Because you’re a bad person. Be better, shithead.

So what you’re saying is: you don’t understand how psychological abuse works, and because you don’t understand it you’re going to assume it’s not real and everyone just chose to be abused? Be a little more humble and learn about something before dismissing it - you sound like a total dolt.

None of the actors of color had their skin color as a subplot either, so what exactly are you comparing this to?

It’s always nice when racists just come out and tell us who they are, as you’ve done here. Try being a better person, angry little snowflake.

What on Earth are you talking about? Designing a system that will only work on white people is *by definition* racist. How much harm a racist act causes or doesn’t cause has no effect on the racist nature of the act, nor does the intent of the actor.

You really haven’t thought this through. The historical data doesn’t contain perfectly accurate counts of who committed every crime - it contains ONLY counts of crimes that were prosecuted and/or recorded. For example: if a racist white police officer only tickets black people for jaywalking, ignoring all the white…

You’ve dramatically misunderstood the situation if you think their tax district was helping them pay *lower* taxes. It gave them more control, but also required them to shoulder more of the tax burden. If the district was permanently disbanded, it would lead to huge tax increases on residents in the surrounding…

I don’t even have my adblocker enabled on gmail, and I’ve never seen anything tagged “ad”, or any ads at the top. Am I just special?

Uhhh... a literal child could script “AI” for this game. Floating the idea that they “did a bad job” when they’ve created one of the most popular mobile games in years (which also has bot opponents that play much better than Agatha) makes you look like a total moron.

Literally no one on the planet was buying tons of credits to open caches desperately looking for Agatha. This is quite honestly the silliest Snap argument I’ve ever heard. So congrats on that, because the Snap community has plenty of truly silly disputes.

“Wasting money”? Okay, I guess you don’t actually play Snap, because there’s no way to “waste money” to acquire the card. Agatha is Series 3, so you can’t control when you unlock her, unless you use your monthly Series 3 unlock to get her, which is ALSO totally free.

It’s not a positive playstyle for the game, so they’re extremely unlikely to ever improve it. It’s just interesting enough to get people excited to try weird things while not being so interesting that it gets played all the time. I think they’ve balanced it perfectly.

Since they don’t actually want you playing Wanda, I doubt they’ll ever remove the booster effect. It’s clearly intended as a disincentive to play zombie Agatha decks just for the boosters.

Who spoke up for you? No one said “all fat people are offended by fat shaming” - the comment said “fat shaming him hurts people reading who have done nothing wrong.” This is an objective fact - there are people who are hurt by fat shaming.

Yeah, it’s a truly abysmal title, which is unfortunate considering how bonkers it looks.

You’re talking about contract law, NOT employment law. Without an employment contract, you have very little recourse under at-will employment.