Turnabout is fair play.

AI can really help the outcome part (by just doing it for you), so for better or worse I see that delinkage continuing.

People who bother to actually learn while using AI will have an edge on those shovel slop, but there’s clearly a difference from previous eras.

I could see how standing up an independent body could be an easy win in the public eye, it’s becoming low hanging fruit, socially.

If they pay their grad students, then at least the time the grad students spend creates enough value to offset the cost of paying them.

If not, stay far away from the program.

Also, regarding the career comment: If graduate school is not at least the first step in a given career (it should the second, undergrad being the first), how/why do you expect gifted intellectuals to spend their prime wage earning years doing it?

Most people do not have access to enough wealth to spend prime wage earning years toiling to help someone else’s career with no return on investment.

Comparing them betrays a complete ignorance of the molecular properties that, in combination with biological system processes, make A and B6 healthy at small doses and poisonous at large doses on one hand, and those that makes PFAS linearly poisonous at any given doses on the other. (And yes, you can be exposed to small amounts of toxins and be fine. That doesn’t change the toxicity of a given substance.)

Struggling to see how this could be anything but a bad faith argument.

They’re doing the lord’s work.

Is not an anti-AI argument, it’s an open and unsolved question. Your optimism is appreciated, but the dismissal and assumption this is already solved is foolish and naive.

Regardless, Lia went from not being in the front of the pack, to being in the front of the pack:

“By the conclusion of Thomas's swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and 554th on the men's team to fifth on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle.”

65th to 1st in one category, and 554th to 5th in another.

It is fair to say there was a significant increase in rank post-transition.

There is certainly a risk of what you’re describing with KYC tech that coming online, but I don’t know if that means it will happen.

To play devils advocate; It’s a reasonable demand from parents to control what their children are exposed to. This seems to support that.

Presumably this conclusion was arrived at because pharma companies sell drugs at a higher cost in the US than they do in EU, Canada, or anywhere else. Therefore elevating profits in the US relative to profit margins in other nations. (Note: they reportedly use the profit to develop new drugs, so this is where the subsidization comes into play, as higher profit markets will drive increased revenue and future drug development.)

And your argument against the premise is: 1. The EU is not at fault, and 2. Drugs cost more in the US because of the poor healthcare system.

Argument 1 does not attack the premise: Undoubtedly the EU is not at fault, the EU does not set drug prices in the US. Pharma companies do, within the context of the US economy, of course.

The premise does not assign fault, it’s an assessment of where profit comes from.

Argument 2 is more direct in addressing the premise, but still misses the point: you might be right, mostly right, or you could be wrong. I lean toward agreeing with the point you made (US healthcare system sucks), it doesn’t address the profit differential across different nations.

So, what about the premise is weak and incomplete?

Pharma shareholders want profit, and the US supplies that at a greater rate than the EU (likely due to the regulatory environment). They’ll take a lower profit margin vs. no profit at all, so they operate accordingly.

None of that goes against the premise that the extra profit from the US market is subsidizing the research costs for drug products that enter the EU market.