pretty much, yeah.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_c...

At this point, our intro comp/first-year English course has been so heavily revised, it no longer includes a novel, or "extended reading" of any kind, no "specialized" or "historical" reading, mostly in-class assignments, no research essay...and we are still seeing a 40-50% rate of AI misconduct.

It's only a matter of time before humanities departments will be forced to accept AI-authored assignments, as part of revised university policy to cooperate with these billionaires. It's already happening, and our response needs to be decisive. Because our students' ability to *think* is at stake.

"Seek out different viewpoints" on an issue doesn't mean you need to go read hateful takes. It should mean, for instance, making sure that your only perspectives on trans issues aren't coming from rich white trans women in the United States.

But: compare the number of weekly "chatgpt encouraged this guy to kill himself" stories with how many stories you see of chatgpt encouraging someone to attempt assassinate a politician or billionaire.

Clearly, it seems like *some* guardrails are working in some manner.

Think about this.

Chatgpt trained on *every* forum where suicide was discussed using words not found in the easiest and laziest wordlists. Where users openly discussed it using every kind of euphemism to get around automated censors.

The exact kind of automated censors these "guardrails" are.