Think Forward.

Human Writing VS AI Writing 5123

Anas Bedraoui, 2 y.
Generative AI is killing the writing market nowadays. Is there still a purpose to writing articles or books as a passion, considering writing is a means of self-expression? The value of writing seems to be diminishing drastically, with many people misusing AI by copying content from tools like ChatGPT and pasting it without even reading it. When someone writes from their heart and mind, expressing genuine human emotions, their work often goes unnoticed, dismissed as AI-generated. Personally, I believe writing has become exceedingly competitive. It's becoming challenging to achieve bestseller status if you haven't published before the rise of AI, unless you're already well-known in your field. This is precisely how ChatGPT and similar technologies are disrupting the market for new writers. Note: This text was not generated by AI.
Anas Bedraoui Anas Bedraoui

Anas Bedraoui

Anas Bedraoui is a PhD candidate at FMS, UM6P, Morocco. He is a member of the Early Career Advisory Group at eLife, Cambridge, UK. Anas is interested in writing about science, research, and psychology. He loves the BLUWR community.


13800

0

Waking Up in the Dark: School Schedules Adapted to Morocco's 21st-Century Child... 87

Aziz Daouda, 5 h.
- Politics - Society - Lifestyle -
2.9 min read.
What inspired these lines is a letter published by a father on social media, which states in essence: "I am writing to you as a concerned parent, but also as a citizen exhausted by a government choice that, year after year, ignores common sense: maintaining a schedule where our children wake up when it's still pitch black to go to school. Every morning, it's the same absurd scenario: wake-up at dawn, children torn from sleep, eyes still closed, bodies tired, forced to go out into the darkness, sometimes in the cold, to reach their school. Sleepy students in class, weakened concentration, growing irritability. How can we talk about quality learning in these conditions?" Beyond fatigue, there is danger. Many parents lack the means to accompany their children. These children walk alone on streets still shrouded in darkness, exposed to risks of traffic accidents, assaults, or incivilities. This fact alone should question the relevance of this schedule. Yet the government persists in defending this choice in the name of economic or energy arguments, without ever weighing the well-being, health, and safety of our children against them. We are not asking for the impossible, only a return to a human rhythm, adapted to the reality of our society. Through this letter, I hope this debate will finally be opened seriously. Our children are not adjustable variables. They deserve a normal wake-up, in daylight, and a school that respects their fundamental needs." It lays out the ordeal experienced by children and parents and challenges the school rhythm imposed on our children. In fact, current school schedules are based on an organization largely inherited from the early 20th century, designed for a society with more stable temporalities, not at all connected and less exposed to constant stimulation. However, scientific studies have converged for some time on a single observation: there is a growing gap between these institutional frameworks and the biological, cognitive, and psychosocial needs of the contemporary child. Even better, the 21st-century child evolves in an environment marked by the omnipresence of screens, the multiplication of digital interactions, and the porosity between school time, family time, and leisure time. Research in chronobiology clearly establishes that exposure to artificial light, particularly blue light emitted by screens, delays melatonin secretion, the key hormone for falling asleep. This late-night exposure permanently disrupts wake-sleep cycles in children and adolescents, making early bedtime biologically difficult, regardless of the educational rules set by families. In this context, maintaining very early school schedules amounts to instituting a chronic sleep debt in the child. Yet, the role of sleep in learning is now solidly documented. Neurosciences show that sleep is essential for memory consolidation, emotional regulation, and the proper functioning of executive functions such as attention, planning, and cognitive control. Regular sleep deprivation is associated with decreased academic performance, increased irritability, and attention disorders that can exacerbate learning difficulties. North American studies provide particularly instructive insights: delaying the start of classes, associated with improved sleep time, leads to better academic results, attendance, mental health, and a reduction in road accidents involving adolescents. The American Academy of Pediatrics explicitly recommends later school schedules for adolescents, in line with their naturally shifted circadian rhythm. Lacking precise studies in Morocco, let's look at what is said elsewhere. Research shows that during adolescence, the biological clock physiologically shifts toward a later bedtime. Forcing a very early wake-up thus directly conflicts with a normal biological process. Ignoring this well-established data undermines the very conditions of learning and well-being. To cognitive fatigue are added issues of safety and social inequalities. The early schedules still imposed in Morocco expose many children to travel in darkness, increasing road and urban risks. For example, OECD studies emphasize that learning conditions extend beyond the classroom: travel time, accumulated fatigue, and family context strongly influence academic trajectories. The most modest families have less leeway for adaptation in accompaniment, secure transport, and educational compensation, turning school schedules into an indirect but real factor of inequalities. Economic, organizational, or energy imperatives cannot justify the status quo. Several international analyses show the exorbitant long-term costs of sleep deprivation: in terms of school dropout, anxiety disorders, reduced productivity, and health problems. These cumulative costs far exceed the adjustments needed for a reform of schedules. The OECD regularly insists on the importance of investing in student well-being as a condition for the effectiveness of education systems. Rethinking school schedules is therefore neither about comfort, laxity, nor whimsy. It is a rational approach, grounded in robust scientific data. Pedagogical effectiveness is not measured by the number of hours spent at school or the earliness of wake-up, but by the quality of attention, the cognitive availability of children, and the engagement of students and teachers. This reflection must fit into a comprehensive approach. Experts emphasize the need to coordinate school schedules, screen time management, workload, balance between family and educational life, and mental health. A high-performing education system is one capable of integrating scientific insights and evolving with the society it serves. In the era of permanent connectivity, persisting with rigid patterns institutionalizes fatigue from childhood. Taking into account the needs of the child, rather than the constraints of the adult world, is not a pedagogical utopia. It is a scientific, social, and ultimately political imperative. Morocco has all the means to undertake a genuine reflection on the issue and should initiate it as the basis for a true education reform.

Chapter 1: Core Premise 201

Satta4959, 18 h.
I observe a pervasive but rarely examined habit in contemporary thought: human inquiry is arranged along an implicit spectrum of objectivity. Physics, chemistry, and formal mathematics are placed at one extreme, treated as paradigms of certainty grounded in measurement, reproducibility, and invariant law. This placement arises not from intrinsic epistemic superiority but from historically contingent access to precise measurement, tractable variables, and high signal-to-noise environments, which permit cumulative knowledge to develop rapidly. At the opposite extreme, the humanities and much of the social sciences are relegated to a realm of supposed subjectivity, governed by interpretation, cultural contingency, and perspective. This relegation is enforced institutionally and socially, producing professional hierarchies that shape curricula, research funding, and the perceived legitimacy of knowledge. Between these poles sit disciplines that trouble the classification itself, including economics, management, medicine, and the biological sciences, which are alternately criticized as insufficiently rigorous or regarded as scientific yet compromised by complexity, variability, and ethical constraint. These hybrid domains demonstrate that epistemic rigor is not a function of disciplinary label but of methodological discipline, computational capacity, and explicit assumption. When this hierarchy is treated as natural, it imposes lasting intellectual costs. Entire domains are exempted from the expectation of cumulative, model-driven understanding, while others are placed under perpetual suspicion. This work advances a precise claim: the pursuit of objective understanding constitutes a single methodological enterprise across all domains of inquiry, including the humanities and social sciences. What varies is not epistemological kind but the sharpness of feedback, the density of noise, the degree of reflexivity, and the number of interacting causes. Across domains, the foundational sequence is constant: assumptions and value premises must be made explicit; relevant variables must be operationalized; formal models must be constructed to generate discriminating implications; and these models must be tested, revised, and compared against empirical and practical constraints. Recent advances in computational power, large-scale data availability, causal inference, machine learning, and large language models expand the frontier of tractable analysis, allowing patterns, structures, and regularities to be extracted from domains previously dismissed as irreducibly interpretive. All phenomena—physical, social, abstract, or experiential—can, in principle, be made objective. Subjectivity is transient, caused by incomplete models, missing information, or limited computation. Closing these gaps allows objectivity to emerge. Mastery of this principle enables the solving of any problem at any scale. Philosophy, science, and mathematics function as concentric orbits guiding this process: philosophy frames questions, establishes principles, and explores meaning; science observes, measures, and maps relationships; mathematics and computation formalize, predict, and optimize outcomes. Inquiry begins at the periphery, where concepts are clarified and commitments articulated. It moves inward through observation and measurement, where claims encounter resistance from reality, and converges through formalization, where ambiguity is reduced to structure. Truth functions as a limit rather than a possession. Progress is measured by the narrowing of plausible explanations rather than by rhetorical victory. Subjectivity arises when models omit variables, when data under samples reality, or when available methods cannot discriminate among competing models. Bias and intuition are temporary artifacts, not permanent human limitations, and their systematic reduction across domains is a procedural goal. Reality itself is a lattice of interdependent facts and relationships; knowledge emerges by mapping these connections rather than through siloed disciplines. Abstract, social, and physical phenomena obey universal principles of causality and interdependence. Truth can be formalized without stripping meaning or emotion from human experience. Framing the right question is the first step toward convergence, and philosophy provides principles and direction that prepare for empirical investigation. Observation across atomic, molecular, neural, societal, and abstract layers uncovers interdependent patterns and reveals leverage points. Probabilistic, chaotic, and quantum systems remain tractable under formal modeling, and extreme human phenomena such as beauty, creativity, morality, and emotion can be represented as multi-layered functions connecting biochemistry, cognition, and culture. Insight arises from cross-layer, interconnected modeling, not from adherence to disciplinary silos. Observation, therefore, is universal; patterns are extractable across domains once measurement, computation, and lattice connections are sufficient. Formalization then converts observation into quantifiable prediction and optimization. The objectivity pipeline proceeds as follows: define, identify variables, map relationships, model, simulate, verify, and optimize. Framing from philosophy guides the science layer, while mathematics converges all domains into predictive structures. Algorithms, AI, simulation, and probabilistic reasoning serve as tools of universal objectivity. Multi-layer latticework modeling connects human, natural, and abstract systems, transforming observation into scalable, actionable insight. This pipeline ensures that domains previously deemed “interpretive” achieve the same procedural rigor as classical sciences. Applications demonstrate the universality of this approach. Supply chains, healthcare, infrastructure, climate, poverty, geopolitical strategy, ethics, cognition, and AI alignment are analyzable as interdependent networks. Objectivity identifies leverage points missed by siloed approaches. Bias, both cognitive and institutional, becomes a transient artifact rather than a limiting factor. Knowledge functions as infrastructure: scalable, auditable, and self-improving frameworks for human and organizational reasoning. The final proposition is simple and universal: objectivity is a meta-method, a universal operating system for truth, creativity, and progress. It is scalable from the smallest ethical dilemma to planetary-scale systemic challenges. Convergence toward truth is procedural, measurable, and general. The pursuit of objectivity is not limited by domain, disciplinary prestige, or cultural convention; it is constrained only by the current state of models, data, and computation. The following chapter establishes this framework, embedding all concepts, thinkers, and orbits into a single, cohesive narrative of rigorous inquiry.
bluwr.com/chasingtruth/chapter-1...