Exactly, imagine if we threw away the entire peer review process and made it about, “Well I have a PhD! Checkmate.”

We’d descend into a dark age for science.

Experts often disagree.

If it were that easy, everything would be solved. We wouldn’t need so much research or so many universities.

I agree with Dr. Jey McCreight on the science.

But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.

Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.

Many people with PhD’s have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.

A PhD doesn’t make you infallible.

I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I’m correct, it’s not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it’s because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.

Yeah, both sides are wrong here.

Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.

So this is the manual that the bad tech support lines use. 😭

AI can type tedious snippets faster than me, but I can just read the code and revise it if needed.

This seems like a game you’d do with other programmers, lol.

I can understand using AI to write some potentially verbose or syntactically hell lines to save time and headaches.

The whole coding process? No. 😭