More evidence for the probably independent hypothesis

I’ve also wondered about the “compute” thing. The use of “spend” over “spent” has been common in Australian English for over a decade, so that’s probably independent.

I'm not sure that the hype-backlash was as unproductive as suggested. Due to AI hype, universities all over the place are putting a lot of resources into AI stuff and letting/forcing it into a lot of pedagogical areas. The backlash may result in some of that being scaled back, which seems good.

One issue here is that especially early students haven’t got a feel for how to be critical of feedback. So I think that having bad suggestions mixed in won’t be beneficial on balance.

My main issue with current LLMs is that there isn’t a guard rail between getting the feedback and getting the LLM to do the rewrite. That’s not an essential problem with the LLMs, but it’s also not one that’s likely to be fixed

Just anecdotally, I find this kind of curious. Lots of CS people I follow are fairly negative on LLMs for coding beyond fairly basic things, but I could see some disciplinary divergence here

This surprised me too, but more power to him if it’s working

How have your students found using an AI or LLM as a supplemental advisor? What are your thoughts on the guidance you’ve seen so far?

What are you finding useful and effective in using AI in philosophy classes?

It’s fantastic!

Thanks! This is helpful. I think you’re right that analyticity is the issue.

How did Carnap struggle with the incompleteness of arithmetic? I'm not remembering.

FEW2026 will run June 19-21, 2026.

Is there a reference for the multi set point? I’d like to see the details.

Yeah, I’d say chili is a soup

I thought all stews were soups