Live data from Hacker News

CheatGPT

blog.humphd.org

101–110 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#101
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…

They address the difficulties of doing this in the post.

Re: CheatGPT

#102
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…

Yeah, this is a good one - does it matter if you wrote the code, or a computer did? If you can explain how it works, and why it is like that that should mean that you understand it and have learned the important parts.

Re: CheatGPT

#104
I'm a college professor. I'm requiring my students to use ChatGPT to aid them on some assignments this semester. Results are mixed so far. I agree with the author, "One of the things I'm thinking about is that I might need to start teaching students how to use GPT/Codex and other LLMs in their [assignments]." One of my top students submitted a sub-par assignment because he relied too much on ChatGPT and provided little beyond what ChatGPT spat out. Another student who previously struggled to write did much better when using ChatGPT--it felt like he incorporated ChatGPTs words into his own ideas.

Re: CheatGPT

#105

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, aka creativity

Maybe not, or not for long. Maybe AGI is coming within 20 years, and maybe human workers won’t have anything to bring to it afterwards.

Maybe this is the beginning of the downfall of the value of intellectual human workforce.

Re: CheatGPT

#106
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…

Yeah, this is a good one - does it matter if you wrote the code, or a computer did? If you can explain how it works, and why it is like that that should mean that you understand it and have learned the important parts.

You could ask it to explain line-by-line for you and memorize that enough to give an oral presentation. You may not get the best grade, but it might be enough for a passing grade.

Re: CheatGPT

#107
Maybe take the approach many physics classes embrace (in germany) : All tools are allowed in tests: calculators, books, as long as the correct answer is derived with "correct derivation path".

If chatgpt makes some problems too easy maybe it's a good thing because we can raise the bar. Find problems that require true understanding beyond auto complete / copy pasting.

Re: CheatGPT

#109
It’s okay, it’s now clear that programming won’t be done by humans within 10 years.

Re: CheatGPT

#110
This is definitely going to require changes in interview practices for a lot of places. For those looking for an alternative, may I suggest pair programming?

I've been doing pairing interviews for years. These days I have a standardized, practical problem, something that's reasonably like the work. (E.g., let's use APIs A and B to build features X, Y, and Z.) I let them pick their preferred language and tooling, so that I can see them at their best. And then we spend a fixed period diving in on the problem, with me getting them started, answering questions, and getting them unstuck.

I like this because not only do I get to see code, I get to see how they think about code, how they deal with problems, and how they collaborate. They get to spend time building things, not doing mensa puzzles, posturing, or other not-very-like-the-work things. And they can't bluff their way through, and it's pretty hard to cheat.

Post reply on HN