So peanuts.

The public universities budget in California is something like 60 billion.

This isn't even a rounding error.

I don't understand why these are seen as mutually exclusive choices. I think I would be in both of these camps if I were a student.

The NYT often has a bias against AI, but the article's contents are actually a pretty reasonable summary of the different attitudes towards AI in academia. Then they went and slapped a terribly sensationalist headline on it, which doesn't seem well supported by the actual article.

Isn't this one of the better uses of AI? Any librarian would have knowledge gaps and bias. Librarian-provided info is best-effort and not considered perfect. They're librarians, not subject matter experts. An AI could give (and cache, since books don't change) summaries of any book, and compare them, far better than a librarian except for niche areas a particular librarian might have read themselves.

This reminded me of back when it was popular on websites to use transparent video to have owners of companies virtually "walk" onto the webpage and talk directly to the user. Stuff like https://newimagemedia.com/videopackages/walk-on-spokesperson... There's a similar awkward period right now as people try to figure out AI.

Why is it always the same kind of intellectually challenged people who need custom avatars?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YOEEpWAXgU

“Our professors were pretty anti-A.I., and then C.S.U. signed the contract with OpenAI and things changed,”

Ok, another corrupt university run by bribes.