an agent does not care about the structure, unless you specifically ask it to. But even in this case you have to review the changes.
【启发】「AI 天然不在意结构，除非你明确要求」——这个发现定义了人类工程师在 AI 时代最不可替代的职责：做代码结构的「守门人」。这与 Every 文章里「每个人都是管理者」的洞见形成呼应：人类的工作从「执行代码」转变为「审查代码质量并为 AI 设定标准」。对工程团队文化的启发：代码 Review 的重要性不是在下降，而是在上升——因为现在需要 Review 的代码量是以前的 10 倍。
for - Christine Wamsler - Lund University - homepage - from - youtube - Mindfulness World Community - Awareness, Care and Sustainability for Our Earth - https://hyp.is/GCUJ1APHEfCcr_vvv3lAFw/www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTUc_0GroGM
to - paper - An Interdisciplinary Model to Foster Existential Resilience and Transformation
to - paper - Engaging high-income earners in climate action : Policy insights from survey experiments
to - paper - Revolutionising sustainability leadership and education : addressing the human dimension to support flourishing, culture and system transformation
to - The System Within : Addressing the inner dimensions of sustainability and systems change
research areas - sustainable cities - collaborative governance - city-citizen collaboration - citizen participation - sustainability and wellbeing - sustainability transformation - inner development goals - inner transformation - inner transition - existential sustainability
I wouldn't focus too much on "posted only after human review" - it's worth noting that's that's worth nothing. We literally just saw a case of obviously riduculous AI images in a scientific paper breezing through peer review with noone caring, so quality will necessarily go down because Brandolini's law combined with AI is the death sentence for communities like SE and I doubt they'll employ people to review content from the money they'll make
The AI-generated feedback goes to teacher review before being passed on to students so that a human remains in the loop.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/2/2/donovan-forced-leave-hks/
This is a massive loss for HKS, but a potential major win for the school that picks the project up.
It seems to be a sad use of "rules" to shut down a project which may not jive with an administrations' perspective/needs.
Read on Fri 2023-02-03 at 7:14 PM
Sparkes, M. (2021, November 19). Wikipedia tests AI for spotting contradictory claims in articles. New Scientist. https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2298169-wikipedia-tests-ai-for-spotting-contradictory-claims-in-articles/?utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_term=Autofeed
Side note: When I flagged yours as a dupe during review, the review system slapped me in the face and seriously accused me of not paying attention, a ridiculous claim by itself since locating a (potential) dupe requires quite a lot of attention.
Yes, autoexpect is a good tool, but it is used just to automatically create TCL-expect scripts, by watching for user. So it’s can be equal to writing expect-scripts by hand.
You can now distribute your add-on. Note, however, that your add-on may still be subject to further review, if it is you’ll receive notification of the outcome of the review later.
that can be partially automated but still require human oversight and occasional intervention
but then have a tool that will show you each of the change sites one at a time and ask you either to accept the change, reject the change, or manually intervene using your editor of choice.