it sounds like you are saying science doesn't matter but your feelings do

Communication is hard, but considering that it is an important skill for all managers one wonders how these people got into their position...

not even Bernie Sanders?

probably not

This can not be seen as layer of abstraction as it's non deterministic and not trustworthy. So we still need to inspect and understand that abstraction layer output if we want to have a reliable product

Adding non deterministic layers on top of a painfully deterministic layer to make more betterer deterministic things is an oxymoron.

...and many people choose to ignore that fact.

"Steve Wozniak cheered after telling students they have AI – actual intelligence "

Could be interpreted as Steve himself cheered. Or it could be interpreted as the passive which is meant here but I would argue it should then say "Steve Wozniak cheered at after telling..." but I am not a native speaker.

The original title "Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak got cheers, not boos, after telling students they 'all have AI — actual intelligence'" can not be interpreted in the way that Steve cheered as far as I know.

Where would the skill issue be? Please be specific.

How is the original title not less ambiguous to you? Do you see other interpretations than I mentioned above or do you disagree with my interpretations?

While it's technically ambiguous, most native speakers would immediately understand that Steve was not the person cheering. Firstly, Steve cheering makes no sense. Secondly, it's a very common construction for newspaper/article headlines.

For example, BBC News right now says "Jury discharged in Ian Watkins pirson murder trial", "Carrick confirmed as Man Utd permanent boss", "Ex-soldier jailed after woman..."

Okay, in this example it's more ambiguous because "cheered" does not have to take an object. But native speakers are primed to expect a passive sentence here.

  While it's technically ambiguous

Is it? To read it as intended, shouldn't it be "Wozniak is cheered"?

I mean technically in the sense that you -can- interpret it two different ways, even if most people wouldn't.

The 'is' is not required because it's using newspaper headline grammar.

I'm a native speaker, and read it the "Wozniak gave a little cheer after" way at first, though the more likely meaning did occur to me immediately after. As for it making no sense, I differ. There are scenarios I can conjure in which that exact sequence could happen, either because he was cheering the students after telling them they're great, or because he forgot what he was doing -- dementia wouldn't even be "early onset" at his age. Further, if something is utterly mundane and expected, there are no headlines about it, as in the old saying about the difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".

Could also mean that he was cheered by the response to his comments and his disposition improved. There are layers of ambiguity in this headline.

Language is often ambiguous! You have to guess the intended meaning based on context clues. Unambiguously phrased language sounds less natural, because it is. Incidentally, this is part of what makes natural language such an awful fit for controlling a computer.

So if somebody wrote the same lengthy answer without AI you would not interfere? Shouldn't we criticize the issues of the text instead of it's creation process?

Sometimes writing a lengthy answer is absolutely necessary to convey stuff correctly and precisely. But if a human is writing it, every sentence has a meaning, and it might just be worth reading. Because a human is unlikely to waste their time drafting it unless they think it’s actually necessary.

>Sometimes writing a lengthy answer is absolutely necessary to convey stuff correctly and precisely.

exactly, but that is independent from the creation process

> But if a human is writing it, every sentence has a meaning, and it might just be worth reading. Because a human is unlikely to waste their time drafting it unless they think it’s actually necessary.

Bullshit. My bosses wrote endless sentences without meaning that were not worth reading before the dawn of LLMs.

ever heard of product placements?

Not from an open-weight LLM, I haven't. In fact, even the paid models are product-agnostic to a fault when I'm looking for something specific.

This is all expected in capitalism as these are mechanisms to extract more profit.

We need more socialists in power...

it looks like you wrote the texts but they seem to be copied without attribution. Shame on you (and lawsuits)

Seems like instructure canvas is FOSS: https://github.com/instructure/canvas-lms/tree/master