I think you're misunderstanding the point of math problems. Mathematics is as much a process as it is a result. This is why even from early on, relatively rudimentary mathematics questions you are graded by your capacity to correctly achieve the desired process to the answer than getting the answer correct. The risk here is that AI generated proofs removes the process part of mathematics, where actually interesting concepts live (because then you can apply novel concepts to other unsolved problems and then thereby unlock new concepts that way...) Sure you can kind of try to reverse-engineer it but you lose the entire intuition and "we tried applying it in X, Y, Z ways and it didn't work" intuition, because even the non-working process can teach you about how not to apply the working process to novel problem spaces.
Basically: Tasting a delicious soup doesn't tell you how to layer the flavors, but if you want to be a good chef, you better be learning flavors more than you learn dishes!
Dolly Parton's Imagination Library project had to have had some justification.
I think picture books are not the same as Scratch. Scratch is much farther along that process. An equivalent might be comic books or graphic novels, which people actually do attribute a love of either as an introduction to fulfilling careers.
I mean they 100% exist. Brandon Sanderson isn't some excessively complicated fantasy world (despite what fans may say, Sanderson is very approachable). Dungeon Crawler Carl is all the rage. Hell, The Locked Tomb trilogy has tons of big swords and stuff. The reason why morning glory milking farm and other smut exists on bookshelves now is that women were finding and buying the small stuff when no one gave them the time of day. If you want your stuff back on shelves, start buying them, for they 100% exists even if it's a self-publishing sword and sorcery guy.
In my understanding when it comes to doling out benefits, it's not an overhead connected to a jobs program. The less eligible people use benefits, the less the government has to pay out benefits. It's strictly better for the government to make getting benefits as hard as possible.
In practice, the government spends far more trying to prevent the boogeyman of people who "shouldn't" get benefits receiving them than any actual fraud would ever cost.
It's not really about the dollar amount of fraud, but maintaining public support for benefits schemes. If people feel that benefits aren't going strictly to the intended recipients the sense of fairness that underlies the system is eroded.
There's also the issue that if you don't counter fraud it will accelerate as organized crime jumps on the bandwagon.
> If people feel that benefits aren't going strictly to the intended recipients the sense of fairness that underlies the system is eroded.
And in an ideal world, you then say "that will literally cost you more money than not doing it", and the argument ends.
In practice, gatekeeping on government programs is primarily pushed for by people who don't think the programs should exist at all. The Venn diagram of the set of people who will withdraw their support for programs without such gatekeeping, and the set of people who mostly don't support such programs in the first place, is close to a circle.
One could argue that by making benefits hard to access, you under-provision and over-reward. This makes fraud more lucrative getting you into a viscous cycle. Normal people less likely to use benefits and dedicated fraudsters more likely.
> It's strictly better for the government to make getting benefits as hard as possible.
iunno, even when they bother to do means-testing in my jurisdiction, they exclude any slightly illiquid assets, regardless of size.
Have a paid off house (any value), paid off motor vehicle (any value) and a corporate pension plan you can start collecting in X years? No problem! You still qualify for long-term social assistance if your income is low as long as your on-paper deposits/investments are also low.
No vehicle/home/pension but your main asset is your self-funded retirement account? You gotta cash that out first. What could you possibly need that for?
I'd get it in the short-term, but the government seems to make it easiest for itself.
Feedback is a gnarly problem because a lot of people assume this means "I, the reviewer, will criticize what I think will improve this work" and "I, the receiver, will receive suggestions to improve my work" but the reviewer and the creative will never have the same idea of what the WIP's ideal state looks like. So the feedback can be actively harmful to the creator. For example, if I'm a Mexican author writing about my abuela, and a feedback is "you should replace all these words with English", that's probably actively harmful to the vision of the work. But also sometimes the creator must be actively open to feedback that "hey, your abuela isn't a person in this story, she's just a female cardboard character" because it's probably a disservice to the vision to have a cardboard character clouded by the creator's nostalgia.
Basically: Tasting a delicious soup doesn't tell you how to layer the flavors, but if you want to be a good chef, you better be learning flavors more than you learn dishes!
reply