antonamo

Maybe currently, but imagine what could arise from the foundational research here. First actual benifit of AI might be more efficient computing. Compare it to the fibre from dot com or GPS and IMU from war research.

Vastly onesided, especially the shutdown of the nuclear plants. They only accounted for 11% of electrical energy production during peak activity. I don’t see how you could have convinced people to build 10x more nuclear plants to achieve net zero, given the huge prior resistance i.e. “Atomkraft, nein Danke”. I agree to the blunder in so far that she failed to accelarate the transirion to renewables at the begin of the millenia. Which was probably no realistic option due to internal party resistance.

The bigger question here and this I think is what subcontiously resonates with this this story is why do you even punish and I think there are three partly compeeding answers.

• First because you want to avoid such thing from happening again

• Secondly because you try to scare people from doing the same

• Thirdly because you want fellons to reflect on there behavior and give them a path to redemption

For the second goal I point at the fact that it happened although this sentence is possible.

Inderd I did. You started with:

[…] He traveled to murder a guy he never met before after stalking him online, carved words from a manifesto into bullet casings, engineered a 3D printable unregistered firearm, fled the scene of the crime with enough cash to live off of for years, and openly denies any wrongdoing by pleading innocent. He is absolutely likely to try it again, or perhaps worse, if released.

If the death penalty exists, and honestly I don’t think it should, then it should apply fairly and treat all human life equally.

This is why I mentioned possible jailtime in my previous comment as a lesser evil and made the point that your represented pov is a logical falacy as it is based on a non existing moral dilemma. So the only thing it represents is an argument of authority.

Just to be completely correct it would have been: “Nein, dann ist Zeit um Deutsch zu lernen! So kann man Scheiß-Posts in zwei Sprachen verfassen.” The english for is correctly translated with the preposition “um” and it is uncommon to use you as we have the pronoun “man” for such cases. But it is actual better German than you hear in my place most of the time.

Still a not a valid argument. It is an argument of authority, a typical logical fallacy. Just because a group of people is reputable and says it right does not mean it is right. I mean a possible jail sentence would be as adequate to prevent him from doing it again, as a counter example. So the argument for killing him would basically narrow down to “because authorities said it is okay”.

Just for the sake of argument. You say that because he killed and probably will kill again, death penalty is justifiable . By the same line of reasoning this should be valid as well for the judge, the attorney and every other person responsible for the final execution. You could even make the argument for the victim, as he killed people by actively rejecting proper medical care in multiple cases.

Should have read it to the end and totally agree

“It’s an attempt at a standardized test that measures problem solving, but in today’s world that’s just obsolete.”

Honestly, Columbia’s reaction feels less about ethics and more about damage control. Lee didn’t cheat to land a job — he built an AI tool to expose how broken Big Tech’s hiring process is. Ironically, that shows the kind of problem-solving and innovation those companies claim to value.

What’s troubling is the university’s overreach. His actions had nothing to do with his academic work, yet Columbia is stepping in — not to uphold integrity, but seemingly to protect its reputation. It looks like a “Bauernopfer” — making an example of Lee to scare other students away from using AI tools.

But there’s a deeper issue: universities are losing their grip on being the sole gatekeepers of knowledge. AI and open-access information are disrupting traditional models, and instead of adapting, institutions are doubling down on outdated rules. This isn’t about Lee’s tool — it’s about “Geltungsverlust” — the fear that their authority is slipping in a world where students can bypass conventional performance measuring schemes.

– Generated out of discussion with 4o as from a european standpoint I can’t understand why the uni was even allowed to act

-Spinning Tinfoil Heads

+dovecoat & postfix? :p