Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CheatGPT

blog.humphd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#91

Post by stillsleepy »

novok wrote: post #53

The failure mode of things like ChatGPT is it can make wrong answers confidently, subtly, and if you don't have the skill to audit what is wrong with the answer, then it can be fairly catastrophic. So instead of making questions generative, you make them audits / debugging type ones. Use ChatGPT to generate a result after several iterations that is wrong and then ask them what is wrong with the result. Since ChatGPT…

the other week i gave chatgpt a simple multiplication problem that it got wrong. very simple problem like 86 * 0.0007 or something. but ive been working with chatgpt for 4-5 weeks now and that wrong answer doesnt make up for all the "good answers" that are usually not perfect. like one day i needed to COALESCE in mysql. i didnt know that, but chatgpt did. theres a few times i would have written a function the complicated way when gpt gave me a much simpler nicer to read way. i think the tool is great and tbh i dont like copilot in comparison and turned it off.

i dont think chatgpt can be a 100% solution without several years of nerfing.

Re: CheatGPT

#92

Post by highspeedbus »

Using ChatGPT et al. to cheat in assignments should be viewed as a practice as low and shameful as ordinary plagiarism.

I wish the best to educators, but they shouldn't lose any more sleep over it. The game is over.

Unfortunately, the future tends towards distrust to pathological levels. Teaching Ethics will be of central importance as never before.

Re: CheatGPT

#93

Post by switchbak »

agrippanux wrote: post #37

What ChatGPT (and its cousins) expose is that the way humans have been taught in most schools - memorizing and regurgitating information - is now a commodity. What humans being to the table over ChatGPT is our ability to create new links between information, aka creativity. Teaching creativity, imo, will require a return to the methods like those of Sophocles and his contemporaries. I would rather this author be writ…

> I would rather this author be writing about how he is going to re-examine how he teaches rather than bemoaning that students can shortcut his current approach.

Did you read the entire article? What you're asking for is exactly how he ends his discussion.

Re: CheatGPT

#94

Post by grrdotcloud »

Technology is amoral. The ChatGPT reminds me of a nailgun vs a hammer.

Once you know how to properly use the tool, the benefits of positive work become evident while the human components remain.

We still need the nailgunner to show up on time, be aware of undesirable outcomes that may be built with an correct prompt, or knowing that the impact of a hammer can be finely tuned to the target.

Formal education is the trailing system far behind the workers, innovators, designers, and experimenters.

Re: CheatGPT

#95

Post by novok »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #78
novok wrote: post #53

The failure mode of things like ChatGPT is it can make wrong answers confidently, subtly, and if you don't have the skill to audit what is wrong with the answer, then it can be fairly catastrophic. So instead of making questions generative, you make them audits / debugging type ones. Use ChatGPT to generate a result after several iterations that is wrong and then ask them what is wrong with the result. Since ChatGPT…

I think it’s an interesting point about making the questions audit or debugging. But, also a mistake to hark on the often humorous fact at how confidently wrong our Gen1 AI can be. That will go down over time. Imagine a time when AI is making good programming choices and correcting itself when it’s wrong. Imagine Gen4 AIs. Both of these things tie together. If we need to detect cheating now, prove you can debug. When…

That is why I said "It's not a %100 solution, and we don't know how long it will take to not be relevant, but it is something you can do today."

Re: CheatGPT

#96

Post by kerpotgh »

ttul wrote: post #90

The best counter to ChatGPT cheating that I’ve heard of is to get students to orally defend their assignments in class. No computer is going to come to your rescue when you have to explain why you wrote the code you wrote. Encourage the use of ChatGPT and other tools. Put the emphasis on understanding what the code does and why. The tool may help to explain this to the student, but if so, that’s fantastic. No need to…

There isn’t any time for this in a 500 person public university classroom.

Re: CheatGPT

#97

Post by pessimizer »

agrippanux wrote: post #37

What ChatGPT (and its cousins) expose is that the way humans have been taught in most schools - memorizing and regurgitating information - is now a commodity. What humans being to the table over ChatGPT is our ability to create new links between information, aka creativity. Teaching creativity, imo, will require a return to the methods like those of Sophocles and his contemporaries. I would rather this author be writ…

> What humans being to the table over ChatGPT is our ability to create new links between information

I'm confident that "creativity" is a combination of:

1) reproduction errors (when we badly copy things and the wrong way to do it leads luckily to a better way to do it), and

2) systematically or by luck applying established and productive models from one context to another, unrelated context, and getting a useful result.

Just not a believer in some essential, formless creativity that generates something out of nothing.

Re: CheatGPT

#98

Post by Workaccount2 »

ford wrote: post #21

Perhaps this is another of the early (?) nails in the coffin for traditional higher education. If it becomes harder to assess if someone learned something (with a grade), the results of that assessment (GPA) become less valuable. Software has traditionally been at the forefront of allowing people with non-traditional backgrounds (bootcamps, other degrees, self-taught) to work in the highest echelon of jobs, because o…

Higher education will become just an optional prep course for your sit down conversational AI interview.

Once AI can do a good job vetting candidates, I see no reason for companies not to have an open applicant process where anyone can interview and be evaluated. If you are sharp and know your shit, a degree won't matter and the AI interviewer won't care.

But this is an "All else being equal" scenario, my true belief is that AI will change things so radically that there is effectively an event horizon in the near future, impossible to predict whats beyond it.

Re: CheatGPT

#100

Post by lostmsu »

kerpotgh wrote: post #96
ttul wrote: post #90

The best counter to ChatGPT cheating that I’ve heard of is to get students to orally defend their assignments in class. No computer is going to come to your rescue when you have to explain why you wrote the code you wrote. Encourage the use of ChatGPT and other tools. Put the emphasis on understanding what the code does and why. The tool may help to explain this to the student, but if so, that’s fantastic. No need to…

There isn’t any time for this in a 500 person public university classroom.

One can delegate that to ChatGPT.
Post reply on HN