They removed it faster then I had imagined.
paw
I find it important that he writes, that freedom of individuals and markets is important because it is without coercion.
To then go on and write that he tried to coerce his editor to accept the change with a "hell yes" or basically resign. This is coercion. Doesn't he see this? Is the irony lost on him?
tj devries had a similar take quite recently: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pmtuMJDjh5A&pp=ygUKdGogZGV2cmllcw%3D%3D
Actually are brains are plastic and can adapt to our inputs. If we focus our selves to reading long essays then our brain adapts and it will get more convenient or easier, less exhausting to read long essays. If we focus on small tik tok videos, our brain adapts as well and we find it easier or mire convenient to watch these Videos. Reading long essays will get more exhausting then.
So, our brains adapted to the calculator and most of us now are worse in calculating a logarithm with pen and paper then our ancestors. Is this a good thing? It depends. I personally believe, that getting worse at critical thinking, as the report suggests, is not a good thing.
Will I use LLMs in the future? Probably yes, but I will be even more careful with the generated text I get back.
Pivot to AI is similar to web3 is going great. You could also look into Ed Zitron's articles: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ however they are pretty rant-like but do also contain a lot of further links.
Although I'm subscribed to this community, I seem to missed out on this particular information. Can you provide some further details or where I can educate myself about this letter and its background?