My guess was that they knew gaming was niche and were willing to invest less in this headset and more in spreading the widespread idea that “Spatial Computing” is the next paradigm for work.

I VR a decent amount, and I really do like it a lot for watching TV and YouTube, and am toying with using it a bit for work-from-home where the shift in environment is surprisingly helpful.

It’s just limited. Streaming apps aren’t very good, there’s no great source for 3D movies (which are great, when Bigscreen had them anyways), they’re still a bit too hot and heavy for long-term use, the game library isn’t very broad and there haven’t been many killer app games/products that distinct it from other modalities, and it’s going to need a critical amount of adoption to get used in remote meetings.

I really do think it’s huge for given a sense of remote presence, and I’d love to research how VR presence affects remote collaboration, but there are so many factors keeping it tough to buy into.

They did try, though, and I think they’re on the right track. Facial capture for remote presence and hybrid meetings, extending the monitors to give more privacy and flexibility to laptops, strong AR to reduce the need to take the headset off - but they’re first selling the idea, and then maybe there will be a break. I’ll admit the industry is moving much slower than I’d anticipated back in 2012 when I was starting VR research.

I think he’s basically saying that it’s racist to “artificially” integrate communities, because (I think he’s saying) if they need to be integrated, then that’s the same as saying that black folks are necessarily inferior. I don’t think he’s trying to say they’re inferior, but that laws forcing integration are based on that assumption. So he can be well educated and successful because he isn’t inherently inferior, therefore there is no need for forced integration.

… Which is such a weird stretch of naturalism in a direction I wasn’t ready for. Naturalist BS is usually, “X deserves fewer rights because they are naturally inferior”, whereas this is “We should ignore historical circumstances because X is not naturally inferior”.

Start a game of monopoly after three other players have already gone around the board 10 times and created lots of rules explicitly preventing you from playing how they did and see how much the argument of “well, to give you any kind of advantage here would just be stating you’re inferior, and we can’t do that.”

Man probably got angry at his golf handicap making him feel inferior and took things too far. Among other things.

Canadians still feeling scorned after eliminating FPTP was a big election point, only to have it fizzle away when third parties clearly started garnering too much support (not that I think it was ever really in the cards regardless) and concerns about proportional representation being too supported by the other parties.

I get both sides of the argument here. I think we need to have this big reaction because companies have held so much power over employees for so long - I’ll avoid ranting about worker-owned cooperatives here - but the past few years I’ve surprised myself by moving into a bit of a “slippery slope” camp with these things. Not to say it shouldn’t happen, but that we need to be prepared for the follow-up.

Hopefully related example, in education: There were some really big push backs recently where I am over bad treatment of the students in highschool, all legit. The school board ignored it for a long time, it got bad, they finally took it seriously. Then they overcorrected and stopped believing teachers at all and started jumping straight to firing at almost any complaint. Then students started weaponizing complaints, and now teachers are getting fired for trying to enforce deadlines and for giving low marks because students are complaining about how deadlines, grades, and meeting grading requirements are detrimental to mental health and well-being, and now there are a bunch of these students from this board in my university classes failing hard and filing complaints about courses being too difficult and other things despite them having glowing reviews just a few years prior.

I guess what I’m getting at: I think it’s fair for someone to choose not to hire people like this because it’s possible that the people willing to stand up and make an important fuss over these things might not know where the line stands between a worthwhile complaint and a non-worthwhile one, and might make a company look badexternally even though it’s doing good internally, just not to someone new to the workforce’s expectations.

I also think it’s fair to go the opposite direction, because ultimately we need major change in the way companies/everything are structured that lead to these nasty layoffs and poor conditions and if someone does raise issues where there aren’t, hopefully we are prepared enough and in the right enough to take it seriously, but weather it and act in everyone’s best interests.

You get meat from butchering them though, right?

That too, and I can really efficiently manage the items going into bags given I backpack my groceries and want pretty specific configurations…

Totally agree. I forgot about those, as I’ve only encountered the weighing ones once in the past very long time and it was a mess, I can totally get hate if weighing ones are the only experience with them.

I almost exclusivity self-checkout for groceries, and it had drastically sped up my checkout time as most people in my area opt to use traditional checkout and the stores are still keeping lots of lanes open (just closing the express lanes). The last 3 times I’ve used a non-self checkout, each time I was double charged for items or didn’t have reduced prices applied and didn’t notice because I was bagging.

+1 to safety razors in general. The disposables always used to make my neck and chin look like a horror film, not for lack of research on using. Switching to safety razors, I only shave around my beard so I use the same blades for a long while and shave infrequently, and I’ve been using the same pack of blades that I bought 5+ years ago. A little cardboard and metal, way less waste, I have a huge supply of razors so I haven’t thought about buying in ages, and I get a way better shave after just a little practice.

And the waste reduction can’t be understated.

Yeah, this is the approach people are trying to take more now, the problem is generally amount of that data needed and verifying it’s high quality in the first place, but these systems are positive feedback loops both in training and in use. If you train on higher quality code, it will write higher quality code, but be less able to handle edge cases or potentially complete code in a salient way that wasn’t at the same quality bar or style as the training code.

On the use side, if you provide higher quality code as input when prompting, it is more likely to predict higher quality code because it’s continuing what was written. Using standard approaches, documenting, just generally following good practice with code before sending it to the LLM will majorly improve results.

Yeah, Barkley’s talks have helped a lot so far. Previous psychiatrists largely wrote off diagnoses because I was successful in work, but overlooked the challenges at home. Some trauma therapy combined with Barkley’s unique focus of adult symptoms of ADHD really opened my eyes to it.

Still doubts, still confusion, but clearing up.

The beatings will continue until morale productivity improves.

Edit: Sorry, morale is irrelevant.

I’m really torn on this, because on one hand the over generalization of ADHD prevented me - and is still preventing me - from taking my own diagnosis too seriously, but that same information got me to at least think about it and get a consult with a psychiatrist on it in the first place.

It helped the diagnosis but not the feelings of being an imposter post-diagnosis.

I appreciate the comment, and it’s a point I’ll be making this year in my courses. More than ever, students have been struggling to motivate themselves to do the work. The world’s on fire and it’s hard to intrinsically motivate to do hard things for the sake of learning, I get it. Get a degree to get a job to survive, learning is secondary. But this survival mindset means that the easiest way is the best way, and it’s going to crumble long-term.

It’s like jumping into an MMORPG and using a bot to play the whole game. Sure you have a cap level character, but you have no idea how to play, how to build a character, and you don’t get any of the references anyone else is making.

This is a very output-driven perspective. Another comment put it well, but essentially when we set up our curriculum we aren’t just trying to get you to produce the one or two assignments that the AI could generate - we want you to go through the motions and internalize secondary skills. We’ve set up a four year curriculum for you, and the kinds of skills you need to practice evolve over that curriculum.

This is exactly the perspective I’m trying to get at work my comment - if you go to school to get a certification to get a job and don’t care at all about the learning, of course it’s nonsense to “waste your time” on an assignment that ChatGPT can generate for you. But if you’re there to learn and develop a mastery, the additional skills you would have picked up by doing the hard thing - and maybe having a Chat AI support you in a productive way - is really where the learning is.

If 5 year olds can generate a university level essay on the implications of thermodynamics on quantum processing using AI, that’s fun, but does the 5 year old even know if that’s a coherent thesis? Does it imply anything about their understanding of these fields? Are they able to connect this information to other places?

Learning is an intrinsic task that’s been turned into a commodity. Get a degree to show you can generate that thing your future boss wants you to generate. Knowing and understanding is secondary. This is the fear of generative AI - further losing sight that we learn though friction and the final output isn’t everything. Note that this is coming from a professor that wants to mostly do away with grades, but recognizes larger systemic changes need to happen.

100%, and this is really my main point. Because it should be hard and tedious, a student who doesn’t really want to learn - or doesn’t have trust in their education - will bypass those tedious bits with the AI rather than going through those tedious, auxiliary skills that you’re expected to pick up, and use the AI was a personal tutor - not a replacement for those skills.

So often students are concerned about getting a final grade, a final result, and think that was the point, thus, “If ChatGPT can just give me the answer what was the point”, but no, there were a bunch of skills along the way that are part of the scaffolding and you’ve bypassed them through improper use of available tools. For example, in some of our programming classes we intentionally make you use worse tools early to provide a fundamental understanding of the evolution of the language ergonomics or to understand the underlying processes that power the more advanced, but easier to use, concepts. It helps you generalize later, so that you don’t just learn how to solve this problem in this programming language, but you learn how to solve the problem in a messy way that translates to many languages before you learn the powerful tools of this language. As a student, you may get upset you’re using something tedious or out of date, but as a mentor I know it’s a beneficial step in your learning career.

Maybe it would help to teach students about learning early, and how learning works.

Education has a fundamental incentive problem. I want to embrace AI in my classroom. I’ve been studying ways of using AI for personalized education since I was in grade school. I wanted personalized education, the ability to learn off of any tangent I wanted, to have tools to help me discover what I don’t know so I could go learn it.

The problem is, I’m the minority. Many of my students don’t want to be there. They want a job in the field, but don’t want to do the work. Your required course isn’t important to them, because they aren’t instructional designers who recognize that this mandatory tangent is scaffolding the next four years of their degree. They have a scholarship, and can’t afford to fail your assignment to get feedback. They have too many courses, and have to budget which courses to ignore. The university holds a duty to validate that those passing the courses met a level of standards and can reproduce their knowledge outside of a classroom environment. They have a strict timeline - every year they don’t certify their knowledge to satisfaction is a year of tuition and random other fees to pay.

If students were going to university to learn, or going to highschool to learn, instead of being forced there by societal pressures - if they were allowed to learn at their own pace without fear of financial ruin - if they were allowed to explore the topics they love instead of the topics that are financially sound - then there would be no issue with any of these tools. But the truth is much bleaker.

Great students are using these tools in astounding ways to learn, to grow, to explore. Other students - not bad necessarily, but ones with pressures that make education motivated purely by extrinsic factors than intrinsic - have a perfect crutch available to accidentally bypass the necessary steps of learning. Because learning can be hard, and tedious, and expensive, and if you don’t love it, you’ll take the path of least resistance.

In game design, we talk about not giving the player the tools to optimize their fun away. I love the new wave of AI, I’ve been waiting for this level of natural language processing and generation capability for a very long time, but these are the tools for students to optimize the learning away. We need to reframe learning and education. We need to bring learning front and center instead of certification. Employers need to recognize this, universities need to recognize this, highschools and students and parents need to recognize this.

Yeah, I really think it’s important to not see Lemmy as one singular community, or a lot of important use cases will go ignored.

I know it’s controversial, but moving away from “guys” when I address a group and more or less defaulting to “they” when referring to people I don’t know.

They was practical, because I deal with so many students exclusively via email, and the majority of them have foreign names where I’d never be able to place a gender anyways if they didn’t state pronouns.

Switching away from guys was natural, but I’m in a very male dominated field and I’d heard from women students in my undergrad that they did feel just a bit excluded in a class setting (not as much social settings) when the professor addresses a room of 120 men and 5 women with “Guys”, so it just more or less fell to the side in favour of folks/everyone.

This mouse? Believe it or not, file.