> yes! and we need to add the death penalty to the list of punishments for children, because what matters is not the size of the crime, but the harshness of enforcement, that's the real deterrent, arewerite!?

Child death penalties probably aren't something that you actually want, right? You NEED them. Nothing gets people to take a step back like capital punishment for misdemeanor crimes. And with great power comes great responsibility.

However, I get where you're coming from. A thought: Speeding is a pretty tiny crime but it needs to be punishable by the death penalty on the first offense. We'd never have to worry about that criminal driving dangerously again. It actually stones 2 birds with 1 kill. That speeder might actually be a serial speeder. Serial offenders sometimes escalate their crimes over time and they never, ever stop until they're not just dead, but also decapitated. The serial speeder that drove 5 over yesterday might drive 7 over today. Tomorrow may even get all the way to 8 over the limit. Eventually they'll get to ramming speed. After a serial speeder gets to ramming speed, they will never accept a slower speed; they will ram other cars and die first. This would have been prevented by simply taking advantage of the power of 1st offense: death penalty.

For both time efficiency purposes and the perception it would bring, judges should be walking around with 2 fully automatic assault rifles tucked under their robes. They already line up before the verdict is read, then dump both mags as soon as the jury says "guilty."

There's an overly lax legal system and no signs of a "Death Row Children's Fun Zone". The reality of that approach is that kids have the freedom ( and enough tokens) for basic white collar crimes. If enough of that happens, money will get canceled forever. Then by the time next Tuesday comes around we'll wake up on an Earth with everything regressed all the way back to a pure barter economy. This is why we can't have nice things.

I'd prefer a grumpy teacher over one that cheerfully gaslights me.

> I also disagree with the essentialist position that the best education possible must be pure-human provided. Maybe if cost is no object and you have a 24/7 human tutor on speed dial for each kid, that would be superior to any AI-assisted form. But it seems pretty obvious to me that human+ai could deliver better results than human alone, in the same way that AI is very clearly enabling GPs to broaden their diagnostic ability, spend more time connecting with patients, and reduce their paperwork toil, when deployed with care.

You seem to think you're making some kind of valid argument here by backing up your opinion about one thing by providing evidence of something unrelated aside from both things happening to involve AI. I'm guessing only reason it seems obvious to you is because it's not obvious to you that what you're disagreeing is something different than what's going on to begin with.

I haven't seen anyone say the best education would be pure-human provided. The entire point of the article is that the effect AI has had on the education of children so far has not been beneficial.

The fact that AI useful for GPs for getting relatively simple yet time consuming administrative work taken care of has nothing to do with children's education. GPs aren't doing paperwork to develop their fundamental reading and math skills. Less time dealing with the non-medical portions of running a practice means they can spend more time with their patients. Spending more time with their patients allows them to better understand their symptoms and make a better informed, more accurate diagnosis even if AI is never used in a patient-facing capacity. In no way does that indicate that AI is currently a suitable to deploy in education.

I don't know if you used AI to learn about what you were arguing with and gather information to back up your argument, but if you did then that's another example of why there's so much concern about little kids using it. Eventually it will be worked into something without such a double edged nature when applied to early learning. Everyone already knows it can be an educational boon for people who have the skills to use it properly. So far, statistics indicate students do not have those skills. The rate of failure among undergraduate students is only continuing to accelerate.

> I haven't seen anyone say the best education would be pure-human provided

I took GP to be saying exactly that, and the OP’s full ban on AI in schools is also enforcing pure-human.

> I don't know if you used AI to learn about what you were arguing with and gather information to back up your argument

Accusing someone of mindless AI slop is a bad faith read. It’s also against the HN community guidelines. Please don’t do this.

I remember that whole "expect 30 to 60 min a night" nonsense. I always assumed that was a scare tactic or something. I mean, in high school i was awake until around 4 am playing games every night so I'd wind up using half of each school day compensating with well-timed napping. Even then, the only homework i had to actually take home was the stuff meant to be turned in a few weeks later like tests and projects. Sure, we had daily "homework" assigned; there was also more than enough time during lectures to finish it. The only students that i really ever saw complain about having tons of homework were the ones that didn't put any effort into learning stuff at school to begin with.

> The net outcome there is going to be highly negative.

Agreed. With the way LLMs often are quite artuculate and confident sounding, it's only a matter of time until kids will be suspicious of actual people that are articulate and confident from putting effort into improving their speech and speaking about things they are right to be confident about due to being proficient in the subject.

Either that or kids will see that LLMs aren't "getting punished" for being "convincing liars" and will grow up convincing the socially correct way to interact with others is by speaking to them respectfully while going all in on long-game gaslighting.

> 99% of security experts I know use ad blockers.

100% of security experts I know find ads annoying and know ad blockers reduce how many they see.

> belch out thick black lib-ownin' ball-crushin' smoke, damaging their own engine in the process.

The black smoke belching is caused by a fuel rich air mixture that leads to incomplete combustion and is pumped out of the engine as a burning cloud of smog. While this can cause problems with carbon build-up in the combustion chambers, it's not especially difficult to clean that out before the engine suffers permanent damage. Most often the worst case is fouled spark plugs, which are wear items meant to be replaced at regular intervals.

The real damage occurs in the exhaust plumbing, typically rendering the oxygen sensors inoperative and cooking the catalytic converter. However, a common way to induce black smoke is by hardwiring the oxygen sensors to report the engine needs more fuel, so it's not like the oxygen sensors were typically working anyway.

Likewise, in many parts of the country where this sort of "coal rolling" is common, it's also common for the catalytic converter to be forcibly removed from the vehicle and pawned off for the platinum mesh inside by a couple meth heads looking for their next fix, which has the side effect of preventing it from being damaged. The missing portion of the exhaust pipe is frequently repaired by welding in a straight pipe, allowing the black smoke to flow more freely while also making the exhaust notably louder and adding the scent of immediate global warming (note: this is pretty much super illegal in most states).

>Most often the worst case is fouled spark plugs, which are wear items meant to be replaced at regular intervals.

You do realize we are talking about diesel's here, they don't use spark plugs. They use Glow plugs because diesel engines don't rely on spark to cause combustion, its just heat and pressure.

Nor do they rely on downstream oxygen sensors like a gasoline powered car. They just use tuning software to up the turbo boost pressures and adjust the fuel mapping. Some guys literally just have a button to hit to briefly swap to an alternative fuel map that maxes out those fuel injectors briefly.

The main problem with rolling coal is damage caused by the extra exhaust temperatures from dumping extra fuel into the combustion process. Plus the fouling up of entire exhaust system over time. Sometimes causing fires within the exhaust system (see Ford's 6.0L Power Stroke meltdowns on youtube)

NASCAR has a tendency to fight changes to the drivetrain technology, so a hybrid might take a while still. The regulations banned fuel injection up until 2012, required transmissions to be 4 speed manuals until 2021 and will probably keep the 2 valve pushrod valvetrain and 90° V8 layout til the end of time. If they ever get around to implementing hybrid powertrains (they've been grumbling about the issue since 2024), they aren't going to be there to save gas. Racing hybrids are designed primarily to recover kinetic energy in deceleration, store it for short term and use it to boost acceleration. There are designs for race hybrids that don' t even use batteries or utilize electrical energy for the hybrid part; instead storing it mechanically in flywheels to avoid the inefficiency of converting from mechanical to chemical energy and back.

This doesn't make sense. Claude isn't creating the vulnerabilities. They've been here the whole time. You just get to know about them now.

> I understood your comment perfectly fine. I'm asking which graduates of which colleges you were referring to.

They are referring to MOST graduates of MOST colleges. This is a deliberate overgeneralization about the nature of post-secondary education meant to highlight how it's frequently viewed solely in terms of completion rather than with regards to any skills or knowledge gained from it.