
A REsponse to Ms Rowsell at Times Higher Education
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
このコンテンツについて
Large scale misapprehension re AI tech use, is especially widespread in places least expected, such as the Academia. It is here that AI so commonly is viewed or treated like some or other sinister force, that must be closely watched and policed. When AI presence is detected, lordie lordie all hell usually breaks loose (i.e. in certain, but fairly often well established influential quarters). THis situation appears to be caused, primarily, by those wielding global sway and power. The traditional scholarly fraternity, with no real interest in, or deeper understanding or even knowledge of AI, are either silent, nowhere to be found, or standing on prominent podiums proscribing new regulatory frameworks and guidelines. THis path is is wholly unscientific, dangerous, and thus spells grave danger for the future of academy overall. Academic Scholars and Professors are obligated to uphold the sanctity of science, in the very first instance. We aim to respond to these premature, unsubstantiated utterings in ways that are rational, logical, and deeply critical. Baseline - Our Reponses are Scholarly Grounded 100%, or closest thereto. and are researched, compiled and stringently reviewed by the exe producer (Audio Dipl, HDE, MMus, PhD) of the Berg Productions Platform. We sincerely appreciate your time and extend gracious thanks for listening. Your expert return commentary is highly valued, during this rather fluid time in human history.