The prisoners dilemma is not real life mate. You're trying to simplify something down to a thought experiment - you look silly. The prisoners dilemma is a puzzle with very specific restrictions and rules. It's designed to make you THINK. It's not designed to be a guide for real life.

But, I'll steelman you. Let's say it IS the prisoners dilemma. Exactly the same. Remove all obvious other variables that come from real life and simplify it down to just that. What are you trying to conclude? Are you really trying to form your moral principles from a thought experiment? I really hope not. You might want to look for a better moral compass to judge others by.

You sound ridiculous.

That's been my solution. The nerd in me just wants to know. I feel like windows and "windows debloat scripts" or the like have gotten worse together. It's like all the people that use to write cool programs or apps for Windows left for Linux and never looked back. (Except the game cracks I guess? Maybe that's even dead now though idk)

I mean, it's a good thing. But, it surprises me how awful the nerd support is for Windows now. I guess it's so annoying to work with that no one even bothers anymore.

It just feels like something that should have a universal solution by now.

If only we could get people to understand that the US military has been the global "ICE" for decades.

ICE is nothing more than Imperialism turned inward.

Is there no solution to this?

My first thought is an IP ban list outside of the computer itself. Put it on your home router maybe.

I guess it could be getting installed from a binary that exists on the OS already.

I haven't used windows in a long time. But it's wild how much work people have to do to decide which programs are or are not installed on their PC.

Me too, but I'll keep trying.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit

As a former Microsoft employee, I have noticed they seem to be left out from these shit tech companies in memes like this. Not sure why. They are beyond awful.

I was terminated for working with other Microsoft employees that were attempting to hold Microsoft accountable for their support of Israel and it's military infrastructure and the Palestinian Genocide.

Fuck all these tech companies. But fuck Microsoft too. They just laid off thousands of people last week. No Azure for Apartheid.

Always has been

This type of thinking is just ingrained in Americans. It's why the "sewer socialism" of Mamdani style politics is so important right now.

Americans are not use to having a government that actually functions. Their relationship with it is rightly defined by its exploitation of the working class in the interest of capital. Though they can't really define it as such. But this "anit government" part is correct in a way. It's just only answered with the wrong conclusion. That "less government and more private corporations freedom is the answer". It's the only answer they get in the media.

Fortunately, the bar for a "functioning government" is so low that even something as simple as the "pothole socialism" we've seen make Mamdani MORE popular is giving people a waking.

"Wait, government can actually do something to help me?"

It's a lost concept; and I think even someone like your aunt could be shaken out of this type of thinking if they actually experienced it first hand.

She has the right right frustrations. It's your job to direct he to the answer that you can show her materially improves her life. She's just distracted be the false conclusion. She has the correct frustration though.

Nah. I think instead we should double down and start promising scientific studies (in a couple weeks) will confirm our hypothesis on autism. We should definitely start fear mongering over vaccines and continue blaming doctors and trans people. /s

Fucking RFK this week.

Its not open sourced. But it's not at all based on adobe Photoshop. I guess if adobe was desperate they could try to sue for a similar UI. But, it's very different than modern Photoshop and basically just closed sourced GIMP (but still free) with a favor to having a similar UI to classic Photoshop.

If it was a daily driver. I'd probably prefer GIMP. But for a friendly free photo editor when I need it; there is nothing more convenient.

Nah, they were at my place all weekend.

For quick edits anywhere. It's amazing to me how little people know of Photopea. It's basically Photoshop for free in your browser.

https://www.photopea.com/

Yes, of course. The vegan protein source of photo editors.

Given OPs axis definitions.

The max homework score for nonai is 115. But there are AI users scoring 115+? I'm confused why there are no better scores above 115 for nonai. Is that data insignificant? Are students with scores higher than 115 just being flagged as AI? It makes the data look unreliable.

I'd also really like to know if the data range that isn't comparable 115+ is at all meaningful data. Because that's where there is a major dropoff. There is obviously a dropoff of significant before 115. But, just from looking at how the data is being presented with this massive dropoff but with zero data for nonai.

I'd be interested in knowing what fraction of the total population is actually being represented in the 115+ dropoff. The way it's presented it could literally be like 10 students.

This is not a defense of AI use. But more a criticism of how the data is being presented.

Also, Any student could be using AI as a resource similar to how I would use solutions manuals or previous tests to study back in my education. The good students aren't gonna copy it verbatim and get flagged. Their going to get the right answer, and use it to learn the process so they can present their own work and actually learn the material.

AI is trash. But this is nothing different than before AI when students would copy the solutions manuals blindly or their peers work. Those students have always existed. AI just makes it slightly more accessible. But, really only slightly. And, honestly, Chegg was just as easy to copy back in the day.

Edit: This graph isn't in the paper that OP linked. So, probably why it's presented so badly. I'm assuming it's from some click bait article then. There is a similar graph in the paper that is much more clear.

But the paper clarifies that this is an actual survey of students. So it's not just from flagged AI homework. Which is good and bad in its own way.

The paper itself in section 5 supports what I hypothesized above. It's not really about AI making students dumb. It's about making it easier for students that already don't want to learn to finish the homework. Same as the people that would copy solutions manuals.

Quote from section 5.

In this section, we show that the majority of AI students exhibit behavior consistent with homework outsourcing, spending little time completing homework assignments and experiencing learning losses. The remaining AI students spend as much time completing homework as non-AI students, receive higher homework scores, and have similar exam scores. In other words, they are learning as efficiently as the non-AI students.

The paper doesn't argue it from what I read. But I'd also argue there is some bias in the survey from the questions themselves. Or at least how the paper lumps categories. The students scoring well in both exams and homework are less likely to consider their use of AI as meaningful enough to answer "used AI for homework". It's a problem with the survey. The survey is asking the students that actually learned the material to attribute their homework to AI alone in the same way the "copy and paste" AI users would.

The survey would probably benefit from having No AI, Some AI, All AI as it's responses. Even in anonymous surveys people make these own interpretations of the questions in their head. And a student that used AI as a resource to learn is very likely to just choose "No AI" when presented with questions of how they got their final answers to homework. Because in their head they are thinking of the students that copy and pasted AI responses and think "I'm not like that".

It's likely why the double high scoring AI user sample is so low (paper says this). The survey is not allowing the response for this set of users to categorize themselves as using AI without feeling like they are like the copy and paste students. So those people are likely just self categorizing as "no ai" because the survey doesn't allow them to distance themselves from the other population. Surveys are hard to write. Even ones where the users know it's anonymous. Good students that use AI will see themselves as good students and the copy pasters as bad students. Human emotion plays a role and most people will not self categorize themselves further negatively than they feel they should be. They are more likely to select the imperfect category that is more positive.

Bad students don't care though. They'll admit to AI use. They already don't care enough to learn the material. They have no reason to lie. So they'll select "used AI".

If you want a good survey you need very simple and minimal answer categories that the majority of the population will be able to self categorize themselves well. But, you don't want to minimize to such a degree that your survey introduces self categorizing bias. I would argue that's what happened here. The most important category is an extremely low sample size compared to the rest of the data.

And I'd also say it's likely the majority of people in reality. They just self categorized as "no ai" because the survey didn't allow them to categorize themselves more accurately without being associated with what they see as negative.

The entire paper seems to not address this strict categorization in its data that is likely introducing bad response data. But I'd have to look at the actual survey questions to know.

I think it's a good paper that suffers from an overly strict self categorizing bias in its survey data.

Even better when you copy and paste the Trump bump. This one is lacking the lumpiness of the diaper.

I agree. I think it's desperation. I don't think it will work.

It's what happens when you don't have the the ability to analyze through dialectical materialism. It's confusing when suddenly the fascist mad man is seemingly taking the same stance as "tankies" on normalizing relations with a non violent country who's only crime has been being victim of a genocidal campaign over half a century ago. Trump likes Kim for the same reason that he likes Xi. He thinks they are actually the evil dictators that the US makes them out to be. He wants to be an evil dictator. He will always respect any leader that panders to his ego and treats him like a leader. Ironically, Western countries are bad at this. It's why he hates europe. Hell, Mamdani was smart enough to play a similar game of charisma. That's the dialectics. At least from what we are hearing from Trump. It's why he says things like this.

The main material reason is that the defeat in Iran has made any chance of the US maintaining its military in East Asia laughable. It cannot maintain its illusion of China being a threat. If China was going to invade Taiwan it would have done it. Instead, China cut its oil imports to help all of its Asian neighbors. The dream of a "shift to Asia" that happened under Obama is gone. The US power in West Asia is dying and they are pulling weapons and troops from East Asia to desperately attempt to hold onto it. They are stuck with capital invested in a region that they are showing absolute failure and weakness in. With capital investments in Israel and the military industrial complex Trump is being pressured to just "bring things back to how they were". They never will be. It may take a long time before that is admitted. I expect another round of bombing campaigns and maybe even a desperate small ground troop invasion to attempt to save face and "claim the strate". But this likely will fail and remain in this denial state for some time; ending through a different president most likely.

He will continue to deny the defeat and soon desperately shift to the one region of the world US capital can continue to exploit: South America.

Some of this is me mixing in my own predictions. Feel free to critize that. But, we obviously all know "JDPON Don" falls into the correct position sometimes, often because of his own ego and the shifting global relations in the face of a dying empire.

TLDR: The "tankies" are against American Imperialism. American Imperialism is losing its power and is forced by material circumstances to take actions that "tankies" would consider good. Trump is appealing to the "strong man" in Kim to make his weak move (failed Iran war causing troops and weapons to be removed) look like strength.

Thanks. Before my edit was my original comment before I realized their was a PDF of the paper available. Should have answered my own question. Appreciated.

I definitely hyper-focused by analysis on homework and exams like math, engineering, science. The study itself separates these into different analysis. The use in writing is actually significantly less, I think because of how obvious the use of AI is in any type of creative writing.

AI is good for bull shitting an email at your work. It's awful for writing of you're trying to not get caught using AI. You can generate a paper with AI. But, if you want to actually write it like a human, check sources, verify claims, and remove hallucinations. It's literally just awful and likely more time consuming than just writing a bull shit paper in your own words to start.

Have you ever read an article or paper of any reasonable length written by AI? It's very obvious and horrible writing that no human would ever write. And the survey was done in China. Natural sounding writing in Chinese is significantly more difficult for AI to generate than in English. Partly due to the dataset bias, but also because the language is just more complex. The "floor" for writing in the Chinese language is much higher from what I know about it an AI writing.

True. It could factor in the response if the students don't believe the survey is anonymous. It would be dependent on how the survey was given out. Electronic surveys are less likely to have students believe that. They have no way of knowing if the survey is truly anonymous. It's full trust based.

Paper surveys with no names and just simple bubble filling that they see immediately go into a stack of papers usually removes this worry in collecting data. Though this is much more expensive to collect survey data this way. Thankfully, for students this can be done for free in class.

But, yes, this fear of "being honest" could hurt the dataset if the students don't feel it is truly anonymous.

Good survey collectors will collect data both ways in order to compare the two methods to see if their is any bias in one data collection than another.

It's a problem. But it's one likely the paper accounted for already by comparing datasets. The problem I mentioned (positive categorization bias) is a potential flaw to the survey that they did not account for.

Though, I just realized you might be talking about a positive categorization bias for students that performed badly. A student not wanting to admit they used AI so they select "no ai" even though they did use it and scored poorly on exams. This is likely negligible though. A student that performs badly knows that they performed badly. This actually makes the positive selection bias favor them to be honest. People will select "used AI" as it lets their bad performance be attributed to something other than themselves. It's basically the same reasoning for the other bias I mentioned.

A bad exam score student that used AI has a positive personal bias to be honest and attribute their failure to AI use. They are likely to blame AI use for their failure. Answering honestly if they feel anonymous.

A good exam score student that used AI has a positive personal bias to attribute their success to their hard work and less about their use of AI in homework. The survey answer offers them no option to categorize themselves in this way without being categorized in the same way as bad students. So they "lie" and select the "no ai use" option as it better categorizes what they attribute their success to. They attribute it to their hard work. And there is no option that allows them to express this with these binary options.