this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
710 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

20567 readers
2004 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human,” Altman said. “It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart. And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.”

So in his view, the fair comparison is, “If you ask ChatGPT a question, how much energy does it take once its model is trained to answer that question versus a human? And probably, AI has already caught up on an energy efficiency basis, measured that way.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're asking how an AI that tutors you might displace the need for people who tutor you? Hm.

You know that people used to know their tailor? You could bring your son in, get him a suit for his birthday. "Hey, this is my boy, William. William, this is Richard, I've been coming to him for years. He does great work. How's the wife, Richard?" I have never spoken to the Amazon website like this. I don't think it can hear me.

[–] qualia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Steelmanning is what wins arguments. For example if I were to say that your argument amounts to little more than lazy contrariness some percentage of us Lemmings would see that as uncharitable, regardless of whether they agreed with my position. I'm not suggesting updoots are important, just that discourse is.

That being said while education and socialization aren't inherently dependent on one another, certain subjects like debate, civics, and ethics should likely be taught in group settings (as well as more often). PhysEd as well.

But if harder sciences and math have the potential to be taught outside the sometimes stressful social hierarchies of traditional schools, it's worth at least exploring.

PS: Regarding your username, have you seen the excellent Philip Set it Hoffman movie "Love Liza"?

Steelmanning is what wins arguments.

Actually, no, it's not. Steelmanning is a tactic.

I mean, as long as people believe in the truth, it's a tactic I'd hope they use.

The main reason that I'm not engaging with the paragraph-by-paragraph is that I just don't feel like taking 6 months to explain a systemic view of society. It is obvious to me that you view an AI education as no different than opening a textbook.

I don't know how you live, so let me tell you something. If you wanted to, you could: work from home (to be fair, I love doing that), get all your trinkets and toilet paper from Amazon, spend your off-time watching vtubers pretend they're uncomfortable with the word 'penis', order all of your food through UberEats, talk to people, if you do, exclusively through Discord and Reddit, ignore all phonecalls and have AI write your texts back instead, skip bathing entirely because what purpose does that even serve at this point, and spend the rest of your time being intellectually stimulated by gacha-game roulettes and call of duty lootboxes.

For a lot of people, school is the one time when they can't do this. They are forcibly dragged by their heels over gravel and concrete into a community with other people. This is a place they can look up and see other faces. They can stand in places where their obscene body odour is shameful enough that they may be bullied into bathing again. They could, perhaps, see another person struggling and offer to tutor them.

Yes, technically, you could educate from an AI, and separately, socialize with people elsewhere. Technically, and I'm not saying these are strictly equivalent, you could segregate your schools by color, but still offer your jobs equally to any applicant, whoever they may be.

The question I ask is, "but would they?"

The social ramifications of teaching people to be dependent on this technology, and this includes their social skills, their sense of community membership, where they feel like they get their friends from (the sycophantic chatgpt is much, much better at affirming your bad habits than any person will be), are so dangerous that I don't really want this technology anywhere. Certainly not in a classroom before anyone has even learned to be self-actualized.

I would rather imagine a world where teachers are paid well. Where more faculty can be hired. Where classroom sizes are systemically allowed to be smaller than they are. Where no-child-left-behind laws, which are destructive, are broken and shattered to pieces. Where students form study groups and support each other, something they should be doing their entire lives, instead of asking a T-1000 that pretends it can giggle.

This is a really basic one, probably not viable for the modern age: every time you need to ask a person a question is an opportunity to make a friend. If you are asking your questions of an AI, where are you making your friends? I'm not implying an answer, this is an open-ended question.

PS: No, but this summary is really fucking funny:

a man grieving his wife's suicide by huffing gasoline fumes and avoiding her suicide note