Right, but saying “I hate the Prius” is not mockery.

Oh, gotcha.

His point is that it’s fine to hate certain cars but that you still shouldn’t mock the people driving them. I think that’s kind of a dumb line to draw, but it’s not hypocritical or inconsistent.

…he’s talking about two different drivers.

The word “prompt” is used correctly here:

My college workflow was to copy the prompt and then “paste without formatting” in Word and leave that copy of the prompt at the top while I worked, I would absolutely have fallen for this. :P

That’s the comment you originally responded to. It’s two sentences (with a comma splice) and very clearly has nothing to do with AI.

Misreading this and misunderstanding it, as simple as it is, is embarrassing but understandable. Commenting “I hope you lose your degree” because you can’t read 28 words of text without drawing completely the wrong conclusion is, again, embarrassing, but not dire.

Arguing in multiple comment threads about it, while your misunderstanding is repeatedly and clearly explained to you, and then saying you “stand by” all of this, makes it clear that you are a complete idiot.

Do you mean that you think a student not using an AI might do that by accident? Otherwise I’m not sure how it’s relevant that there might be a real person with that name.

…ashamed to admit I didn’t recognize the flag, and was thinking of people saying that the two political parties are indistinguishable. That does make more sense.

Not saying I condone political violence, but the Democratic Party has absolutely not been willing to stop Republicans “by any means necessary, even violence”.

Large parts of “the Left”, maybe; but certainly not the actual party politicians.

Holy shit, “prompt” is not primarily an AI word. I get not reading an entire article or essay before commenting, but maybe you should read an entire couple of sentences before making a complete ass of yourself for multiple comments in a row. If you can’t manage that, just say nothing! It’s that easy!

Wot? They didn’t say they cheated, they said they kept a copy of the prompt at the top of their document while working.

Presumably the teacher knows which students would need that, and accounts for it.

…whose published work on the essay’s subject you can cite?

…they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.

There was no Palestinian sovereign state prior to Britain’s decision to establish a Jewish homeland in the region. It was briefly under shared British and French control following a revolt against the Ottoman Empire during WWI; then the League of Nations assigned Britain control over the region as “Mandatory Palestine”.

Mandatory Palestine was explicitly intended to be temporary, with Britain providing “administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”. Additionally, it was always intended to provide a home for the Jewish people without displacing Palestinian Arabs. Of course, this didn’t really work out. There was a lot of conflict between the Palestinian nationalists and the Jewish nationalists.

The UN’s action in 1947 was to partition the region into separate Jewish and Palestinian sovereign states. The reason this didn’t actually happen was because Arabic leaders both within the region and nearby rejected the idea of a sovereign Jewish state in the region. Israel declared independence anyway, and as the Palestinian Mandate expired, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began as an effort to destroy the newly formed Israel. But of course Israel got support from other countries, and the war ended with Israel controlling most of Palestine and believing its neighbors to be a constant existential threat.

The Palestinians did not declare an independent, sovereign state until 1988, at which point they actually declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. There has never been a proposal for a two-state solution that Palestinian leaders have endorsed.