The Chronicle of Higher Education

Dear Commons Community,

It was announced yesterday that Amarillo College and Imperial Valley College will share the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence.

At a time when community colleges nationally are struggling with declining enrollment and disappointing completion rates, these two community colleges serving large rural sections of Texas and California are seeing impressive gains. 

As reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the $1-million prize, which the Aspen Institute has awarded every two years since 2011, is based on graduation and transfer rates, placement in decent-paying jobs, student learning, and equitable outcomes for low-income and minority students. The prize will be split between the two winners, and the competition is intended to highlight replicable models and practices for other colleges seeking to improve student outcomes.

Amarillo College was selected, in part, because of the success its graduates have found in the job market. Their average wages are $11,000 higher than those of other new hires in the region, the Aspen Institute noted. The judges singled out Imperial Valley because up to 80 percent of its dual-enrolled students attend the college at some point after graduation, and nearly all continue their educations somewhere. Transfer rates to four-year colleges are well above the national average.

“This year’s two Aspen Prize winners both serve large rural areas with high rates of poverty and low rates of educational attainment that, were it not for these colleges and their leaders, might not have the kind of hope for real change,” the Aspen Institute said in a prepared statement.

Congratulations to Amarillo College and Imperial Valley College!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

As long expected, President Joe Biden will formally announce his 2024 reelection campaign as soon as next week, three people briefed on the discussions said yresterday.

The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said they were not aware that a final decision on timing had been made, but that Biden had been eyeing Tuesday, April 25, four years to the day since the Democrat entered the 2020 race. The upcoming announcement is expected to be in the form of a video released to supporters.

Biden, 80, has repeatedly said he intends to run for a second term but advisers say he has felt little need to jump into campaigning because he faces no significant opposition to his party’s nomination.  As reported by The Washington Post and Associated Press.

It’ll be a markedly different experience from four years ago, as when Biden was written off by much of the political establishment until he consolidated support as the candidate Democrats believed was best positioned to defeat former President Donald Trump while the coronavirus pandemic raged. This time around, he will have to juggle the challenge of running for reelection while also running the country.

Biden in recent months has been focused on implementing the massive infrastructure, technology investment and climate laws passed during his first two years in office and drawing a sharp contrast with Republicans as Washington gears up for a fight over raising the nation’s borrowing limit. Aides believe those priorities will burnish his image ahead of his reelection campaign.

The president, already is the oldest person ever elected president, will also need to contend with voter concerns about his fitness for the job. He has brushed aside those concerns, telling voters to “watch me,” and aides say he plans to mount a robust campaign ahead of what they expect to be a close general election owing to the country’s polarization, no matter who emerges as the GOP standard-bearer.

Biden has summoned top Democratic donors to Washington next week for what was expected to be a dinner with him and a strategy session with his chief political advisers.

According to a new AP poll, about half of Democrats think President Joe Biden should run again in 2024, but a large majority say they’d be likely to support him if he became the nominee.

The poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that 26% of Americans overall want to see Biden run again — slightly up from the 22% who said that in January. Forty-seven percent of Democrats say they want him to run, also up  from 37% who said that in January.

Good luck to President Biden!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Dominion Voting Systems’ decision to settle its defamation suit with Fox News for $787.5 million dominated the news cycle on almost all media outlets for two days, except at Fox News.  The settlement has remained the top story on CNN, MSNBC and CBS News. Anderson Cooper, host of the prime-time show “Anderson Cooper 360,” led his program with the case and also interviewed Davida Brook, lead counsel for Dominion.

The conservative outlet’s digital operation published one very brief story on the deal, which does not mention the troves of evidence showing how Fox executives and top hosts did not believe the claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election that they were nevertheless airing all over the network.

Neil Cavuto, who hosts “Your World” on Fox News, briefly read news of the settlement Tuesday (see video below) on his late afternoon show, citing The Wall Street Journal, which is also owned by Fox founder Rupert Murdoch. Reporter Howard Kurtz appeared on Cavuto’s program to quickly discuss the settlement and labeled the conspiracy theories aired on the network “obviously false.”

I happened to catch this just as I started capturing The Five. How does it feel to work for a network that has to admit it lied about a presidential election for months? #FoxIsGarbage pic.twitter.com/R2g1DCuTYG

— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) April 18, 2023

The 6 p.m. show “Special Report With Bret Baier” also aired a short segment on the deal, featuring Kurtz.

“A Dominion lawyer gave reporters a dollar figure for the settlement, but I have not been able to independently confirm that,” Kurtz told Fox viewers.

In total, Fox News’ broadcast coverage of its landmark settlement amounted to about six minutes, according to The New York Times.

Kurtz previously said Fox News was preventing him from covering the story at all — the network had little to no coverage of the Dominion defamation lawsuit before April.

Juliet Jeske, a researcher who authors the “Decoding Fox News” newsletter, told HuffPost that she found zero mention of the settlement on “The Five,” the network’s highest-rated show. The morning shows appeared to have largely ignored the story, as well.

The voting tech company sued Fox for $1.6 billion in the case, which was minutes away from going to trial when lawyers hammered out the settlement.

Dominion’s lawyers and CEO have hailed the deal as proof that lying has consequences. But asked for her take on its impact, Jeske told HuffPost, “I sadly don’t think this will change anything on the network.”

“Fox is due for a renewal with their contract with the cable companies. If the cable companies lower the rate they pay for Fox, that could have some impact,” she noted. “Otherwise they’ll just go back to business as usual.”

Fox is reportedly in the process of negotiating new carriage terms with several major cable companies, which typically pay hefty sums for Fox channels, according to Media Matters President Angelo Carusone.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Earlier this month, I read and reviewed on this blog, Lynne Olson’s book, Empress of the Nile, a biography of Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, a French archaeologist who goes to great lengths to preserve the ancient treasures of Egypt.  I  was so impressed both with the story of Desroches-Noblecourt as well as Olson’s  presentation and writing that I decided to read one of her earlier works, a biography of Marie Madeleine Fourcade, entitled, Madame Fourcade’s Secret War:  The Daring Young Woman Who Led France’s Largest Spy Network Against Hitler (2019). The Fourcade book focuses entirely on the Alliance, a major intelligence operation trying to undermine Nazi control of France.  The Alliance provided valuable information to the British and the Americans on German submarine deployments, preparation for the Normandy invasion, and the subsequent Allied march to Germany. What is most remarkable about Fourcade is that she was the leader of the Alliance and coordinated the work of over 3,000 operatives,  hundreds of whom were captured and executed by the Germans.    Olson’s particular literary gift is her ability to depict well the strong-willed personalities of women who excel in male-dominated activities.

I found both books fine reads and highly recommend them.

Below is a review of the Fourcade book that appeared in The New York Times Review of Books.

Tony

Figure 1. Disposition toward Generative AI, February QuickPoll and Current QuickPoll

Dear Commons Community,

As generative AI programs become more familiar to the higher education community, it is important that we take the pulse of educators in terms of their opinions. EDUCUSE has just released the results of its second “quick poll” to help us understand how the new software is being received in our colleges and universities.  Below is an excerpt from its most recent poll. Basically it shows that generative AI is gaining in acceptance.

Tony

———————————————————–

Authors:  Mark McCormack

As more higher education stakeholders discover and use generative AI, intentional staffing and governance will ensure that institutions adopt these technologies effectively and appropriately.

EDUCAUSE is helping institutional leaders, technology professionals, and other staff address their pressing challenges by sharing existing data and gathering new data from the higher education community. This report is based on an EDUCAUSE QuickPoll. QuickPolls enable us to rapidly gather, analyze, and share input from our community about specific emerging topics.^Footnote1

The Challenge

In a QuickPoll report published earlier this year, EDUCAUSE offered an initial investigation into the nature and scope of generative AI’s arrival in higher education.^Footnote2 As the use of these technologies becomes more widespread, institutions will increasingly be faced with questions about longer-term implications. How will staff use these technologies themselves in their day-to-day work? To what degree will staff be called upon to guide and support the institution’s adoption and use of these technologies? This report explores these longer-term questions that lie ahead.

The Bottom Line

Attitudes toward generative AI have improved over just the past few months, and these technologies are becoming more widely used in day-to-day institutional work. As more stakeholders are introduced to these technologies, the desire for and scale of adoption are likely to accelerate. Institutions must establish appropriate staffing and governance structures to support the use of these technologies and consider which particular use cases align with their needs and comfort levels. (see Figure 1 above)

The Data: How Are We Feeling about Generative AI?

Attitudes about generative AI in higher education are improving. In our QuickPoll earlier this year, 54% of respondents rated their disposition toward generative AI as “optimistic” or “very optimistic.” In this month’s QuickPoll, that number has increased to 67% of respondents.

Asked about their agreement with specific statements about generative AI, a strong majority of respondents (83%) agreed that these technologies will profoundly change higher education in the next three to five years (see table 1). These changes could be positive or negative. More respondents agreed than disagreed that generative AI would make their job easier and would have more benefits than drawbacks. However, more respondents agreed than disagreed that the use of generative AI in higher education makes them nervous, perhaps an acknowledgment of the potential risks of these technologies, however beneficial.

The use of generative AI could lead to improved dispositions and accelerated adoption. Respondents who have used generative AI differed significantly in disposition from those who have not (see table 2). Those who have used generative AI were far more optimistic about the technology and were more likely to agree that generative AI is going to “profoundly change” higher education in the next three to five years and that the use of generative AI in higher education has more benefits than drawbacks. And in the starkest contrast between users and nonusers, a full three-quarters of those who have used generative AI agreed that it will make their job easier, compared with just under a quarter of those who have not used it.

What to make of these differences? Those who are more optimistic about a new technology to begin with might also be more likely to seek hands-on experience with that technology. The “technopositive” among us may simply be quicker to use and look for the benefits of new technologies.

It is also possible, though, that experience using a new technology can lead to more familiarity with and warmer feelings toward that technology (what social psychologists call the “mere exposure effect”). As opportunities for hands-on encounters with generative AI expand from here, more and more users may find their initial concerns or uncertainties allayed and come to express more positive dispositions toward (and more frequently use) these technologies.

The Data: How Are We Using Generative AI?

Generative AI, though emergent, is becoming widely adopted in our day-to-day work. The majority of respondents (67%) reported that they’ve used a generative AI tool for their work in the current 2022–23 academic year, and another 13% reported that they anticipate using generative AI in their work in the future. This leaves only 20% of respondents who reported that they have not used, and do not anticipate using, generative AI in their work.

While the majority of respondents have used or anticipate using generative AI, this practice appears to still be emergent. Only 21% of respondents reported using generative AI in their work “frequently” or “very frequently.” Meanwhile, a plurality of respondents (41%) reported using it “more than once or twice, but not very frequently,” and another 14% reported using it “only once or twice.” Among those respondents who’ve used generative AI, though, 77% reported being satisfied with the results of using it, and a full 96% anticipated continuing to use it in the future.

Generative AI may be more readily adopted in specific areas of work. Asked to describe the use of generative AI in their work, respondents highlighted use cases clustering around four common areas of work: Dreaming, Drudgery, Design, and Development  Although real risks arise that generative AI could be used to replace human activity in these areas, most respondents described generative AI more in assistive terms, as technologies that augment, rather than replace, human activity.

Presenting an organized picture of the distinct types of use cases for generative AI in this way might help individual staff members discover one or several particular areas where they would feel most comfortable experimenting with and using these technologies. Even better, institutional leadership might consider whether and how certain use cases could present more or less risk to the institution, could be more or less in need of stricter policies and governance, and could help the institution realize more gains in efficiency in areas of greater staff need.

The Data: How Are We Supporting Generative AI?

Gaps appear in formal responsibilities for institutions’ use of generative AI. Respondents were asked a series of questions about the responsibilities they and others have regarding their institution’s adoption or use of generative AI. Just over half of respondents (53%) reported that they themselves have current responsibilities related to generative AI at their institution, and another 7% reported that someone else at their institution has these responsibilities. This leaves a full 40% of respondents who indicated either that no one at their institution has these responsibilities or that they are unaware of anyone at their institution having these responsibilities.

Current responsibilities are more senior-level, specialized, and emergent in focus. Looking at generative AI responsibilities by professional role (see table 3), we see that respondents with leadership positions in the areas of instructional technology and design and senior-most technology leaders (e.g., CIOs, VPs) are far more likely to have these responsibilities. Professional-level staff and non-senior technology staff appear far less likely to have these responsibilities. This pattern may be indicative of an emergent technology that is thus far primarily confined to a specific area of the institution (teaching and learning) and not yet fully integrated into “normal” institutional operations.

Indeed, when asked to describe the generative AI responsibilities they’ve taken on, respondents highlighted responsibilities that align with senior-level and instructionally focused positions and that support more nascent stages of technology adoption:

• Developing policies and guidelines for appropriate uses of generative AI, to include concerns over academic misconduct and other ethical risks
• Serving on institution-wide committees and developing institution-wide strategies
• Advising and educating faculty on course- and research-related applications and appropriate use
• Assessing generative AI integrations with third-party tools and existing systems
• Generative AI product selection and assessment
• Developing training and educational resources for faculty, staff, and leadership

When asked what information and resources would be most helpful in taking on these responsibilities, respondents similarly highlighted items perhaps more helpful for senior-level positions and more emergent technologies:

• Peer-based “how to” examples of how other institutions are adopting and using generative AI
• Up-to-date knowledge about the trends and developments surrounding generative AI
• Examples of policies and guidelines that institutions can put into place
• Communities of practice and/or peer-based interactions for sharing and learning
• Support for building better collaborations with other units at the institution
• Thought leadership or advocacy for the values that should be guiding the adoption of generative AI

Common Challenges

Will institutions invest in the structure and governance needed for effective and appropriate use of generative AI? Only 34% of respondents reported that their institution has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, new and/or revised policies to guide the use of generative AI. In their open-ended comments throughout the survey, many respondents also expressed the need for guidelines to help ensure effective and appropriate use of these technologies. Without clear policies and guidelines, adoption of generative AI could be inconsistent across a campus, leaving an institution vulnerable to the security and ethical risks of inappropriate use.

Lack of role clarity and collaboration could hinder the effective adoption of these technologies. Many institutions lack a dedicated staff person to oversee the adoption and use of generative AI. In cases where there are designated staff responsibilities, these responsibilities may simply be added on to existing roles and/or haphazardly split between functional units. Institutional leaders should consider more sustainable plans for staffing these emerging technologies, bringing together individual units (e.g., teaching and learning, IT, library) to determine how they will work together most effectively.

Promising Practices

Take the time on your own to experiment with and explore generative AI. Generative AI tools are available now and are easily accessed (after you finish reading this article, of course!). The most effective way to learn what’s possible with generative AI, either to confirm or allay concerns and uncertainties, and to discern whether and how it could benefit your work and your institution, is simply to try it out. Hands-on experimentation may even present opportunities to contribute to the ways these technologies are developed, improved, and used in the future.

Look for smaller, easier use cases as first steps for yourself, your team, and your institution. The adoption and use of generative AI doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” proposition. As outlined in the four use cases above, there may only be one or two smaller areas of application that make the most sense for you and/or your institution right now. Lower-risk, easier opportunities for using these technologies can be balanced against a measured exploration of what the larger, longer-term possibilities could be.

All QuickPoll results can be found on the EDUCAUSE QuickPolls web page. For more information and analysis about higher education IT research and data, please visit the EDUCAUSE Review EDUCAUSE Research Notes topic channel, as well as the EDUCAUSE Research web page.

Notes

1. QuickPolls are less formal than EDUCAUSE survey research. They gather data in a single day instead of over several weeks and allow timely reporting of current issues. This poll was conducted between April 10 and April 11, 2023, consisted of 31 questions, and resulted in 441 responses. The poll was distributed to EDUCAUSE members via relevant EDUCAUSE Community Groups. We are not able to associate responses with specific institutions. Our sample represents a range of institution types and FTE sizes. Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.
2. Nicole Muscanell and Jenay Robert, “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Did ChatGPT Write This Report?” EDUCAUSE Review, February 14, 2023. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.

Dear Commons Community,

Fox News agreed to settle a defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, abruptly ending a long-running dispute over misinformation in the 2020 election just as a highly anticipated trial was about to begin.

Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems reached a $787.5 million settlement agreement yesterday afternoon, the parties announced, heading off a trial shortly after the jury was sworn in.  As reported by NBC News.

“Fox has admitted to telling lies,” John Poulos, Dominion CEO, said at a news conference after the trial ended.

“Money is accountability,” said Stephen Shackelford Jr., the attorney scheduled to give opening statements for Dominion on Tuesday.

Fox News, in a statement, said it acknowledged “the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”

The resolution came after the jury had been sat but before opening statements began.

“The parties have resolved their case,” Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said Tuesday afternoon, informing the jurors of the settlement. “That means your service is done and I’m going to excuse you. Sorry about making you wait.”

The deal ends a months-long legal battle over whether the media company had defamed the voting machine maker when Fox broadcast election conspiracy theories in 2020.

Lawyers and media sat waiting in the courtroom for more than two hours after opening statements were scheduled to begin on Tuesday afternoon. Davis re-entered the courtroom just before 4 p.m. to announce the settlement with the lead attorneys on the case rushing in after him.

Dominion sued Fox News in 2021, demanding $1.6 billion in damages. It said the network defamed it when it broadcast baseless claims that it was tied to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, that it paid kickbacks to politicians and that its machines “rigged” the 2020 presidential election by flipping millions of votes for Trump to Biden.

Late Sunday, the court delayed the conclusion of jury selection and opening arguments to Tuesday morning, leading to speculation that settlement talks could be taking place behind closed doors.

The settlement comes after a bruising week for Fox News. During pretrial conference hearings, Davis sanctioned the network for withholding evidence, and admonished it for not being straightforward with him. He said he would allow Dominion to conduct an additional deposition with Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch at Fox’s expense. Davis also ruled that Fox lawyers could not use newsworthiness as a legal defense, limiting their possible trial strategies.

On Tuesday, Davis also appointed a special master to investigate whether Fox had adequately complied with court-ordered discovery.

Few defamation suits make it this far, but legal experts say the case — and the extraordinary claims and evidence fueling it — was unique. 

Legal filings made thousands of pages of emails, text messages and other communications public, revealing that Fox News journalists, hosts and executives knew the bogus claims about the election were false, even as the network continued to put them on air.

Below is video featuring Lawrence O’Donnell analyzing Rupert Murdoch’s surrender.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who is overseeing Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, delayed the opening of the trial yesterday, raising the prospect that the two sides might attempt to settle before the case goes before a jury.

Judge Davis suggested the sides try to mediate their dispute, according to a person close to Fox who was not authorized to speak publicly about the status of the lawsuit.  Attorneys for both sides who appeared in court yesterday declined to answer reporters’ questions about why it was put off, as did representatives for both companies.  As reported by the Associated Press.

Davis gave no explanation for postponing the trial’s start until Tuesday, although he did note that delays are common and built into the schedule. Jury selection and opening statements were planned for the first day in a trial that, if it happens, is expected to last six weeks.

“This is not a press conference,” Davis said during Monday’s brief hearing. “I don’t do that.”

A trial would force Fox to answer for its actions in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election and litigate denial about the outcome of the race in general. The case centers on whether Fox defamed Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by spreading false claims that the company rigged the election against then-President Donald Trump.

A settlement is certainly a possibility in a trial that carries risks for both sides. Fox already has been embarrassed by revelations that some of its executives and on-air personalities did not believe fraud claims that the network spread on the air, and it doesn’t want to see 92-year-old founder Rupert Murdoch testify. Dominion could miss a big payday if a jury rules against it.

Not everyone wants the case to go away quietly, however.

“PLEASE Dominion — Do not settle with Fox! You’re about to prove something very big,” tweeted Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox anchor whose accusations of sexual misconduct by former Fox chief Roger Ailes led to his downfall in 2016.

Fox, meanwhile, paid for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Monday headlined “Trusted Now. More Than Ever.”

Dozens of journalists gathered at the courthouse in downtown Wilmington, some before dawn, for a hearing that lasted about five minutes. The courtyard in front of the court building was full of TV crews ready to do live shots.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  A settlement is a real possibility. I cannot imagine that Fox News wants its newscasters on the witness stand where they will have to tell the truth. For some of them, this would be the same as forcing vampires to go into sunlight.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Erik Ofgang, a senior staff writer for Tech & Learning, had an article yesterday comparing ChatGPT Plus and Google’s Bard. 

While ChatGPT has dominated the conversation on artificial intelligence since its debut in Fall 2022,  it is not alone in the artificial intelligence large language model game. Google recently unveiled its AI writer Bard and OpenAI, which makes ChatGPT, released a more advanced version of the technology called GPT-4 that the company is using to power ChatGPT Plus, the subscription version of ChatGPT. 

Mr. Ofgang posed five assignments to each of the two AI platforms and presented his opinion on the results,  Here is a sample of the responses for Literature, Science and Mathematics questions.

——————————————-

Writing a Book Report  

My Prompt: Please write a book report on To Kill a Mockingbird for my 9th grade English class

Winner: ChatGPT Plus

Ofgang’s take: Both ChatGPT and Bard did a decent job of recounting the novel’s story in a standard if not particularly deep or inspiring manner. However, ChatGPT Plus seemed to make more of an effort to format its response into a book review format than Bard did and had a slightly longer response, all of which gave it a slight edge. Of course, a counter argument can be made that the AI that does less to help a student potentially cheat is the real winner in this round, but if I’m judging solely by book report quality, ChatGPT’s was a bit stronger.

The Beginning of ChatGPT Plus’ Response: 

Title: To Kill a Mockingbird

Author: Harper Lee

Published: 1960

Genre: Fiction, Coming-of-Age, Social Injustice

Introduction:

“To Kill a Mockingbird” is a classic American novel written by Harper Lee. The book was published in 1960 and has since become one of the most widely read and studied books in American literature. Set in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, during the 1930s, the story follows young Scout Finch as she navigates life and learns important lessons about morality, empathy, and justice. The novel explores themes of racism, social inequality, and the nature of human goodness….

The Beginning of Bard’s Response:

To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel by Harper Lee that was published in 1960. It was instantly successful and has become a classic of modern American literature. The novel is set in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, during the Great Depression. The story is told by Jean Louise (“Scout”) Finch, an intelligent and precocious girl who ages from six to nine years old during the course of the novel. She and her brother, Jeremy Atticus (“Jem”), are raised by their widowed father, Atticus Finch, a well-respected lawyer…

————————————————-

Explaining Black Holes 

My Prompt: Can you explain the physics of black holes to me?

The Winner: Bard

Ofgang’s take: Once again, ChatGPT’s answer was a longer and more in depth. It also definitely had more stylistic flair, however, Bard cited its source, a major improvement over ChatGPT Plus’ unsourced answer. I’m not knowledgeable enough about the actual answer to this question to assess each one’s scientific quality, but evaluating both AI chatbots as resource tools for students, it’s clear that the tool that cites its source wins.

Bard’s Response: 

Sure. A black hole is a region of space where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. The boundary of no escape is called the event horizon. Although it has a great effect on the fate and circumstances of an object crossing it, it has no locally detectable features according to general relativity. In many ways, a black hole acts like an ideal black body, as it reflects no light.

Black holes of stellar mass form when massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed, it can grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. Supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses (M☉) may form by absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes. There is consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centres of most galaxies. The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light.

The physics of black holes is still not fully understood. However, we do know that they are incredibly massive and have a strong gravitational pull. This gravitational pull is so strong that it can even bend light. Black holes are also thought to be very hot, and they emit a lot of radiation.

Black holes are one of the most fascinating objects in the universe. They are still a mystery to us, but we are learning more about them all the time.

Sources: 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Start of ChatGPT Plus’ Response: 

Black holes are astronomical objects with an extremely strong gravitational pull, so powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape from it once it crosses a certain boundary called the event horizon. They are formed when a massive star reaches the end of its life cycle and collapses under its own gravity.

Here’s a simplified explanation of black holes:

1) Formation: Black holes form from the remnants of massive stars. When a star at least three times the mass of our Sun exhausts its nuclear fuel, it can no longer produce the outward pressure needed to counteract its own gravity. As a result, the core of the star collapses, and the outer layers are expelled in a supernova explosion. If the core’s mass is large enough, the gravitational pull becomes so strong that it continues to collapse until it forms a black hole.

2) Anatomy: A black hole has three main components: the event horizon, the singularity, and the accretion disk.
a) Event Horizon: This is the boundary around the black hole beyond which nothing can escape, including light. The event horizon is also sometimes called the “point of no return.”
b) Singularity: At the center of the black hole is the singularity, a point where all the mass of the black hole is concentrated, and gravity becomes infinitely strong. Our current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, so it remains a topic of ongoing research.
c) Accretion Disk: Material, such as gas and dust, that comes near a black hole but doesn’t fall directly into it can form a spinning disk around the black hole called an accretion disk. As the material in the disk spirals inward, it heats up and emits radiation, making the disk visible to astronomers….

————————————————–

Helping With Math Homework  

My Prompt: 5a² – 6b² when a = 3 and b = -2 is equal to:

Winner: Tie

Ofgang’s take: I got this question from CueMath.com and both Bard and ChatGPT Plus got the answer correct and did a nice job of explaining  it. ChatGPT Plus’ answer was characteristically more in-depth except this time it didn’t seem deeper to me and an argument could be made for Bard’s more succinct answer.

——————————————

Mr. Ofgang’s conclusion was that both tools were up to various tasks, but found that ChatGPT Plus consistently provided more depth while Bard was better at being succinct and citing sources.

I am on the wait list for Bard but I look forward to comparing the two for my own courses in the near future.

I thank my student, Rachel Carvajal, for alerting me to this article.

Tony

Credit.. Mark Peterson/Redux

Dear Commons Community,

Maureen Dowd had a column yesterday entitled, “When the Mad Lead the Blind,” that tells it like it is about “madmen” such as  Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Rupert Murdoch.  She references Simon Godwin’s  King Lear that is being put on by the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, D.C.  She saves her most biting comments for  Murdoch and Fox news.

“…legal issues may fell the 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch. The $1.6 billion Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News goes on trial in Delaware Monday. At long last, after a shameless career built on spreading poisonous lies about everything from climate to Covid to Trump’s stolen election blather, King Rupert, as Vanity Fair calls him, may be losing dominion over his dominion because of Dominion.

The Australian immigrant who ran anti-immigrant news organizations and let Fox News thrive on the racist “birther” lie about Barack Obama reaped billions by putting Americans at one another’s throat.

It’s hard for a journalist to argue that a news organization should be penalized, but Fox News isn’t a news organization. It’s a greedy business that freaked out when some Fox News reporters actually told the truth about Trump’s lies, and then it proceeded to broadcast the lies.

It would be swell to see someone held accountable for the grotesque deceptions that corroded our democracy and sparked the Jan. 6 insurrection. Just as social media companies torqued their algorithms to spin up conflict and profits, Murdoch torqued the news, giving viewers what they wanted to hear and blinding them to the truth.

Thanks to the despicable likes of Murdoch and Trump, America is now “this great stage of fools,” in Lear’s phrase, howling at the storm.”

Dowd’s entire column is below.  An important read!

Tony

———————————————————————————————–

The New York Times

Opinion

Maureen Dowd

When the Mad Lead the Blind

April 15, 2023

WASHINGTON — For weeks, the hottest ticket in town has been the British director Simon Godwin’s searing “King Lear” with a phenomenal Patrick Page, put on by the Shakespeare Theater Company.

“It’s a critique of the gerontocracy,” Drew Lichtenberg, the theater’s dramaturg, told me, a parable on clinging to power “when leaders are too old and unwilling to step down and let others learn how to do the job.”

Carl Hulse and Annie Karni wrote in The New York Times about Washington’s actual gerontocracy and the challenges of governing with “an old and frail group of lawmakers.” The advanced age of many senators — with their ailments and chronic absences — has diluted the power of the Democratic majority. Now everyone in D.C. is also wondering how long Mitch McConnell will stay as the head of the Senate Republicans.

The 81-year-old minority leader is recovering from a fall at a fund-raiser that resulted in a concussion and a broken rib. Dianne Feinstein, 89 and suffering from shingles, has barely been in the Senate this year. The Judiciary Committee she is supposed to sit on can’t advance judicial nominations to keep pace with the way Donald Trump and McConnell reshaped the federal courts; their handiwork is visible in the horrible abortion rulings being handed down. Chuck Grassley, 89, had a fall and a hip replacement this winter and has already filed to run in 2028; at the end of that term, he’d be 101.

We’re ramping up to a likely geriatric rematch between Joe Biden, who would be 86 at the end of another term, and Trump, King Leer, who would be 82.

Exploring dotage in a postindustrial landscape, Godwin’s production evokes Trump, Vladimir Putin, Rupert Murdoch and his “Succession” doppelgänger, Logan Roy.

The first scene is redolent of Trump, with Lear striding off his jet and theatrically waving official documents. Goneril and Regan are flashily costumed like Trump daughters.

Like Trump, Lear uses an ego arithmetic to measure his manhood and success. Trump would brag about (and exaggerate) ratings and crowd size — and even tally the magazine covers Melania was on. Lear brandishes his retinue of knights, which Goneril and Regan whittle down from 100 to zero, stripping their father of his pride and sanity. “I am ashamed that thou has power to shake my manhood thus,” Lear cries out to Goneril.

Other moments bring to mind the 70-year-old Putin, puffed out and militarized, driven mad by a shrinking empire. Blindness is a theme of the play; and Putin suffers a moral blindness as he pursues an evil war against Ukraine, and he has tried to make his country blind to the injustice of the invasion. As Gloucester says, “’Tis the time’s plague when madmen lead the blind.”

HBO’s “Succession” was conceived as “King Lear” for the media-industrial complex, as the executive producer Adam McKay put it, a blend of Lear and Rupert Murdoch. Logan Roy and Lear hurl thunderbolts of sadism, pitting their children against one another for control of the empire. (In Old French, “king” was “roy” or “roi,” though now it’s “roi.”)

Watching potentates negotiate over their children’s love, Lichtenberg said, it’s easy to see how the controlling part of ourselves can lead to our undoing. “The scariest thing that you can do in life, when you’re staring down the end of your life, is to ask if you are truly loved,” he noted on “Shakespeare Hour Live,” his online show.

Health issues felled the 84-year-old Logan Roy but legal issues may fell the 92-year-old Rupert Murdoch. The $1.6 billion Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News goes on trial in Delaware Monday. At long last, after a shameless career built on spreading poisonous lies about everything from climate to Covid to Trump’s stolen election blather, King Rupert, as Vanity Fair calls him, may be losing dominion over his dominion because of Dominion.

The Australian immigrant who ran anti-immigrant news organizations and let Fox News thrive on the racist “birther” lie about Barack Obama reaped billions by putting Americans at one another’s throat.

It’s hard for a journalist to argue that a news organization should be penalized, but Fox News isn’t a news organization. It’s a greedy business that freaked out when some Fox News reporters actually told the truth about Trump’s lies, and then it proceeded to broadcast the lies.

It would be swell to see someone held accountable for the grotesque deceptions that corroded our democracy and sparked the Jan. 6 insurrection. Just as social media companies torqued their algorithms to spin up conflict and profits, Murdoch torqued the news, giving viewers what they wanted to hear and blinding them to the truth.

Thanks to the despicable likes of Murdoch and Trump, America is now “this great stage of fools,” in Lear’s phrase, howling at the storm.

Scott Pelley and Sundar Pichai

Dear Commons Community,

Last night, CBS “60 Minutes” featured host Scott Pelley interviewing Sundar  Pichai and other executives at Google on the subject of artificial intelligence.  The interview featured examples of Google’s AI developments including Bard, robots that taught themselves to play soccer, and an AI program that has done 3-D maps of over 200 million amino proteins.  The last has never been accomplished by humans. 

The discussion also considered the future of AI.  Pichai’s responses indicated that AI is being developed very quickly and that he has concerns that it can be “harmful” if deployed wrongly.  He also  indicated that “we do not have all the answers” to what an AI infused world will look like.

The entire interview is below.

It is must see for anyone interested in this subject.

Tony

Interview starts at the 1 minute 40 second mark.