That sounds like ot could be a focused lesson. Why try to skirt around what the desired goal is?

That also could be placed into detecting if something is wrong with AI too. Teach people things to just help spot these errors.

In my experience, it’s so much more effective to learn how to find the answers and spot the issues than to memorize how to do everything. There’s too much now to know it all yourself.

There was a period of time where I was too lazy to re-hook up my main PC to everything. I just hooked up my Steam Deck instead via a USB C hub.

It was then that I realized I don’t really use my main gaming PC anymore. I just play on the Steam Deck and almost everything else is just general use most of the time.

Since then, I found I still prefer to do some tinkering on a way the Steam Deck isn’t very good at, so I been thinking of selling off my PC and buying a capable laptop to have that extra ease as I found I don’t need the extra performance anymore.

Wasn’t that due to someone manually activating it because they thought there was an actual credible threat?

Might be misremembering though.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to find ways on how to utilize the tool of AI and set up criteria that would incorporate the use of it?

There could still be classes / lectures that cover the more classical methods, but I remember being told “you won’t have a calculator in your pocket”.

My point use, they should prepping students for the skills to succeed with the tools they will have available and then give them the education to cover the gaps that AI can’t solve. For example, you basically need to review what the AI outputs for accuracy. So maybe a focus on reviewing output and better prompting techniques? Training on how to spot inaccuracies? Spotting possible bias in the system which is skewed by training data?

Yup, to add on, with all those restrictions somehow it’s still a crime ridden mess over there.

I think the point is that correlation is not causation. A ridiculous example was used to illustrate that point.

What about for times when the ammo prices skyrocket?

This literally happened not too long ago.

Correlation isn’t causation. Example, we all have drunk water. Everyone dies at some point. I found correlation that drinking water causes death 100% of the time.

The number of guns isn’t the issue, it’s what he’s choosing to do with them. There are legitimate reasons to own them that are not malicious. Gun collection for example. There are some wacky designs out there. Look up the forgotten weapons YouTube channel for examples.

Devil’s advocate here. Where is the line? In an extreme example, ADHD is a mental condition so maybe they shouldn’t have guns?

In a more nuanced example, what about the trans community? Some say it’s mental disorder, some don’t. So should they or should they not have any firearms. Highest cause of gun death is actually suicide and trans community has high rate of suicide.

The point I’m making is, I think we can agree some extreme examples are very easy to distinguish. But it is a very slippery slope where people’s rights could be taken away without proper due process. Basically, at the mercy of the current administration’s opinions rather than the actual facts of the situation.