He seems to frame it as such. He notes that he’s learned lessons and seems to show it as a before/after in the table. Presumably if it wasn’t satisfactory he would not have stopped improving it there.

Fair point. Thank you for the chuckle.

I understand that, but he says he made some adjustments and after those it’s still checking 14 times a day? He seems satisfied with that outcome and I am just not sure if I’m misinformed or if there’s a reason that after the improvements it’s still requiring all those checks. It seems like the initial outcome was stupid, but I don’t understand why his improved outcome is viewed as an acceptable way to accomplish that task.

Oh, I understand that, but then if you look at the table, he says he improved it and it’s still checking 14 hours a day.

I’m extremely confused. Why is he checking the time every hour 14 times a day? I understand he’s trying to test AI out so he’s doing something trivial, but I feel like I’m having an aneurism reading this. This is still not an optimal way to do reminders. Am I just really dumb or is this nonsense?

This should really go without saying, but the government should not allow, much less endorse, companies experimenting on their citizens. I’m pretty sure the government should protect people from corporations, not feed people to them.

the hospital will test AI tools for check-ins, triage and outpatient care and AI will be tested in schools and at Barnsley College, all in an effort to improve pupils’ results and teachers’ workloads

AI has no place in these settings, certainly not yet. Why do you even need AI for checking in? This is extremely sad to see, and I highly recommend reading the whole article. There’s a nursing and teacher shortage in the UK. Why not bolster those programs instead? I understand wanting to give your community options, but I certainly don’t want to hire someone who thinks asking AI to do their work for them is a life skill. I do see people hiring for positions that use AI, but you have to know how to do their job first. Why not focus on that?

Apple is being terrible here, but Walmart now has an amazon-like storefront where third parties can list their own products basically entirely apart from Walmart but using their site. Not sure what the percent cut Walmart takes is, but Walmart might never actually buy from a company selling on their site.

The thing I don’t understand about Liquid Glass is that glass is meant to let you see through things. The things they’re applying Liquid Glass to are not meant to be seen through. They are adding visual noise to elements that should be solidly separated. A folder of apps does not just have the visual information of the many apps within, but also is muddied by a hazy portion of the background. The folder is an eyesore since it is so busy and does not blend in with the expected block like look of other apps. Same with all other elements Liquid Glass has been used for. I’m not into graphic design, and my UIs are notoriously bad so maybe I’m just missing it, but it’s just bad in my opinion. I liked skeuomorphism though so what do I know.

Why did you need a shitty AI image for this?

That was an interesting read, but I am not convinced that they understand the “problem” they are trying to address. That would also explain the vagueness of the title. Clearly they think something needs to change because of AI, but they have not explained why, or defined what, or the parameters for a positive change. It makes it feel arbitrary.

At one point he suggests that telling people who are taking the exam after you what specifically is on the exam is not cheating, though his students seemed to think it is. If telling people is encouraged then people taking the test first just have a more difficult task and their results are more likely to reflect their knowledge of the subject. At that point just give people the exam questions early. I had a professor that would give out a study guide and would exclusively pull exam questions from the study guide with the numbers changed. It was basically homework, but you were guaranteed to have seen everything on the exam already and that was such a great way to ensure 1) people fully understood the scope of the test 2) relieve stress about testing. If they don’t see a problem with only certain people knowing exact questions and answers ahead of time, then I’m not sure they understand what cheating is.

Unrelated, but they also blame outlook for why young people hate email. I had to use outlook for a bit and it does suck, but my hatred for email is unrelated.

I’m glad they are experimenting with different methods for testing, but without really knowing more about the class itself this comes off as though this is just a filler class in a degree program and that the test doesn’t really matter because their understanding of the subject doesn’t really matter. In another blog he refers to the article about how AI failed at running a vending machine which was making the rounds a bit ago. In it he laments that we’re going to have to “prepare for that stupid world” where AI is everywhere. If you think we can still fight that, I don’t think accepting AI as a suitable exam tool is the way to do it, even if you make students acknowledge hallucinations. At that point you’re normalizing it. 2/60 is actually not bad for using AI, as he said there will always be those students, but the blog makes me question the content of the class more than anything else.

I would leave a review and stop going. I have had to switch providers for services myself and it sucks but I refuse to give any money to people doing this if it can be helped. Even worse, people doing this so sloppily that they don’t bother to even read what they copy/paste.

They should be banned from having any unlocking restrictions after they were found to have violated the initial FCC mandates placed on them. Absolutely disgraceful. No accountability.

I do not want AI involved in my patient-doctor communication at all. If transcription software is needed, though I’m not convinced it is, then they can use transcription software, but at the end of the day I think a human being should be the one responsible and making decisions regarding what is and is not officially listed in a medical record. AI is not sufficiently advanced enough for me to trust that it will not make mistakes that could endanger lives.

If we wanted to save time with billing codes, we could just do away with them and have a system that just lets people get the healthcare they need. If a test is ordered, that test should be entered as is by the doctor and not need any additional interpretation or overhead. I don’t do medical billing, but I can’t imagine a reason it needs to be more complicated than that.

Specialized AI double checking radiology may have a use, but I still don’t see it as a replacement as much as a second check.