I don’t know that the article was all that badly written, but you missed a couple of points that I’d call essential:
One, it was 32 students out of 35 total who used AI and then didn’t even bother to check it, so only 3 students even made an honest attempt in the entire semester.
Two, the professor told the students that they were allowed to contest the grade if they wanted, and only 2 out of the 32 students even tried to contest it.
The guy from the article was referred to as “a US man,” so I’m assuming he has US citizenship.
The border cannot legally deny US citizens from entering the US. But they can do all sorts of other things, like detain or delay or prosecute people for not complying.
OpenAI’s general model doesn’t give out reliable medical advice. So, they need to instruct it not to give out medical advice, and instead to tell the user to consult a real doctor. Hopefully they have done that already.
But beyond that, there’s a quagmire. Some people will move mountains to avoid talking to humans about anything, or even about some certain things like their health, and if ChatGPT refuses to give advice, they’ll either find a way around the instructions to the AI, or they’ll just find another AI that is willing to give medical advice. So part of me is glad that these people will get a specialized medical advice AI model, because it’s better than nothing, and if OpenAI wants to risk the lawsuits, that’s their problem. But it’s still dangerous if their new medical advice model hallucinates like all of the current models seem to. I personally wouldn’t recommend people use it.
I’m reminded of how Disney pulled most of their movie ideas from the public domain, and then pushed hard to try to extend copyright so that none of their movies would ever enter the public domain themselves.
What I thought the article was going to be about, assuming it was clickbait: Tech Executives losing their jobs after losing their company’s money on AI, or Tech Executives realizing that it’s their jobs that could most easily be replaced by AI.
What the article was actually about: Literally murder threats and firebombing their houses and that sort of thing.
I have no comment beyond being surprised that the headline was literal.
I worked in software for, well, let’s say 20 years, at some elite places, too. And the one thing that I never understood was how few people ever bothered “to make sure it is correct,” as you put it, even before this new problem with AI. They didn’t even bother to make sure it was correct even when they wrote it themselves.
You don’t know how many times I’ve been sent a request to review code, and it should have only been like 20 lines of code, but instead it was page after page of irrelevant stuff, because they created the review from the wrong baseline. But they never even took a single look at it before they sent it to me.
So many people don’t write tests for their code that generally my biggest achievement at any given assignment was creating test frameworks that let them write tests using domain specific language, because it made it much easier. At a certain point, if it’s easy enough, even those people will write tests, especially if they know that I’ll be doing the review.
I honestly don’t see AI code as being all that different. People still don’t even do the minimum, but they just get exposed and embarrassed more easily.