The purpose of most reports are absolutely for Assurance to decision makers or management and often times, we disagree with management or provide a view that might not favorable. Which just reflects the realities of what we have identified or tested.

As I said, this seems like thought leadership dribble which absolutely even as someone who has worked in Big 4, I think they're pretty average.

My take based on the title is that yes it is cheating. It is cheating by not demonstrating you have the capability to read, write cohesively, do that etc on your own sufficiently, which is the entire point. Yes cheating helps you complete the task, but it doesn't demonstrate you can do the task on your own.

In the future when the world is potentially as reliant on AI like we are with a calculator, word or excel, then perhaps your focus moves to how quickly can I get this task done in the smart way.

It is still important when growing up to understand critical thinking skills, writing, report writing, math etc. These are all fundamental skills that are required for not just completing certain tasks but also to understand learning itself.

AI completes the tasks for you, which isn't the point of school, but the learn how to do the task on your own. Then you can use AI later if you wish, then you "hopefully" have the skills to understand the output you're looking for and to critically understand what you're putting out into the world.

I wouldn't call it a simulator but an arcade firewood splitting game

Historically without any facts I'd say that men have long been steered towards STEM related roles, whereas females have not. Purely as a long standing historical change in roles for Women vs roles for Men, there have been traditional roles for females vs males, however this is shifting.

There are so many reasons for this that I'm probably not best to talk to it. The important thing is that these things are changing to provide more choice.

Using AI requires skills to know how to use it, particularly agents then it requires the time to build an improved way of doing things.

I think of it like giving someone excel in the beginning and expecting they know how to use it, when the rest of their team doesn't, they don't have the skills to know how to use it and how it can benefit them.

Wikipedia is an incredible resource and yes given its model it is maintained and moderated by volunteers, which has meant during particular global events the Wikipedia articles associated are subject to potential changes representing misinformation that requires the volunteers to moderate through.

If systems are scraping this information and they don't have processes to correct itself then that's not the fault of Wikipedia, but the fault of those tools blindly scraping the data and serving it.

Wikipedia is an incredible resource. Wikipedia doesn't poison global knowledge, it is a knowledge source that changes over time and is subject to bias like anything. If you scrape this information and use it as gospel without assessing its bias or updating it based on changes then the LLM's are knowingly serving information that they know might be incorrect.

I should add that the information you get out of an AI tool is also based on your prompt, if you ask it for information relating to Gaza, you should ask it for an independent view that covers multiple knowledge sources to help mitigate these issues.

I agree that clearly there are areas with factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia and I'm not sure on what the solution is to resolve it, I also don't see this article coming up with a solution either. Okay move to a different platform, but as that platform grows it will become a similar target for the exact issues mentioned.

Steering wheel looks like its trying to be old school, but really shouldn't be.

How do two people get in at the same time? Both go for the door handle right next to each other then let the other get in first because there's not enough room for two to get in at the same time on one side.

Also, wouldn't be hard to put in a solution to block that type of traffic over the mic.

The reason you grind on a problem is because it is difficult and requires you to learn and bridge knowledge. You're not grinding through many problems for the sake of it you're doing it because they're challenging and slightly different each time.

I wouldn't be saying AI has done anything at the moment in my company. Because for me it immediately reduces my trust in what you're putting out into the market.

Once the perception issue goes away or reduces, anything marked with AI is going to have consumers pretty distrusting in your product.

I appreciate the "well technically no" points when someone says AI is conscious or intelligent. Because we understand how it works and can argue why it does what it does and all of its flaws.

But you can't mistake the latest LLM's abilities to mimic it, particularly the latest models we have today like Claude Opus 4.7. Humans are also very good at being confidently wrong and the latest models are getting pretty close to that if not better than most people.

As it gets less and less perceivably different to human interaction and in many cases potentially doing a better job in some regards to human interaction, then on the face of it to the end user, what's the difference?

Its not just how you life your life to the state, its for your own health and those around you. Your life will be marginally better without cigarettes.