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

201–210 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#201

Post by l33t233372 »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #161
gchallen wrote: post #140

I teach CS1. A lot of this post resonated with me. In particular, I don't think that beginners are well-served by relying on AI to complete their assignments. Later on, once they've developed some computational thinking abilities, sure. Starting out, no. There's a real dearth of good options available to computer science educators today for teaching introductory material effectively in the face of all the new and exi…

“Oral exams also don't scale and raise obvious equity issues.” Not to be intentionally obtuse, but what are the obvious equity issues?

On top of the other issues discussed, I think that giving effective oral exams is hard for the same reasons that interviewing is hard. It’s a test of the subject’s ability to quickly and confidently say things that sound roughly correct. Some people stumble over their words and cannot effectively speak and think completely accurately in the time required to give a reasonable answer without an uncomfortable pause.

Now, these issues could be mitigated by asking each person the exact same questions and taking careful notes of their responses, but then you’re just back to a bad essay that can’t be revised, edited, planned, or recollected as easily as a real essay.

Re: CheatGPT

#202

Post by pfisch »

Can't you add a series of weird restrictions to the questions that make it very difficult for chatgpt to work with.

Must use switch statement, must declare an iteration int on line 10.

Must use a for loop to count down in reverse.

If you have like 8 of these rules chatgpt may not be able to handle it.

Re: CheatGPT

#203

Post by uneekname »

yamtaddle wrote: post #36
paxys wrote: post #8

> Apparently, it's not even something students feel they need to hide. Which is good! If a bit of work is trivially accomplished by a machine, we should take it for granted and move on to the next layer of complexity. I have always maintained that teachers complaining about students cheating at homework assignments with AI need to instead work on providing better homework.

Creating the paper has never been the point of these things. The paper has no value at all, to anyone, as soon as the grade is issued.

That may be the case for some students, but there are a number of papers I wrote in college that I am proud of and revisit regularly.

Re: CheatGPT

#205

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

user432678 wrote: post #149
vlunkr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t too different from requiring students to write essays. No one actually needs another essay about Shakespeare or whatever, and ChatGPT could do it for you, but the point of the exercise is to learn to write. It’s the process, not the product that matters.

Everyone’s ChatGPT gangsta until their ChatGPT-trained doctors start giving fatally wrong diagnosis. 100% agree with whole comment. I interview cheaters time to time, their excuse of not learning stuff is exactly that. However, in the end they’ve cheated themselves more than the system.

With the rate they give fatally wrong diagnoses and treatment plans today, I wonder if ChatGPT could be actually better for patients.

Re: CheatGPT

#206

Post by jefftk »

asdff wrote: post #194
mechanical_bear wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“enough friction and a timesink” Have you taught students before? Many will spend inordinate amounts of time to not learn the material. Often times it seems there is no friction too great if it allows one to not think too hard.

Yes, and I've been one, and know that time is finite and you have more than one class that demands work on a deadline, along with all the other fun stuff college has that pulls you away from your studies, and the not so fun stuff like part time employment. If you leave the system as it is today, its easy to copy and paste code. If you do something akin to what I proposed, you've eliminated copy and paste, and made ch…

And then someone in the dorm makes a keystroke injector, and everyone goes back to typing their code on their own computer.

Ex: https://null-byte.wonderhowto.com/how-to/make-your-own-bad-u...

Re: CheatGPT

#207

Post by notduncansmith »

shadowgovt wrote: post #165

I find myself wondering if the future of programming looks more like editing than synthesis. This is not a bad thing if it's the case; a lot of the job of a software engineer is in analysis of code that exists, but so much of the pedagogy is in synthesis-from-scratch in a world that is already full of billions of lines of code.

The leadership career track for programmers already closely resembles this process (providing natural language prompts for ICs and then reviewing/correcting the output), with AI just shortening the feedback loop. This has me wondering which software stacks will most readily lend themselves to AI-driven-development.

Re: CheatGPT

#208

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #163
thfuran wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intractable and unsolved problems only!

Or just novel applications of the things you learn in class. "Congratulations! You leaned depth-first-search! ^award noises^ Below is the algorithm for reference because memorizing it just for this test is silly. You're working on a real time mapping application called Maply. Locations are represented as nodes and all direct routes between any two nodes are represented by directed weighted edges." a) Write a function…

[deleted]

Re: CheatGPT

#209

Post by throw310822 »

I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me.

What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It is effectively proving that acquiring knowledge and professional skills is becoming useless, for good. In a few years (3, 5, 10 at most) this is going to defeat the entire purpose of hiring, and therefore of completing most forms of professional education. At the current rate of progress, most intellectual professions will be obsolete before today's sixth-graders are ready to enter the job market.

I can't even picture a functional world where humans are cut out of most professions that don't involve manual work; where any amount of acquired knowledge and skills will be surpassed by machines that can produce better results at a thousandth of the cost in a thousandth of the time a human can. And even if such a world can function, I can't imagine a smooth transition to that world from its current state.

I'm worried, does it show? :)

Re: CheatGPT

#210

Post by mypalmike »

xvector wrote: post #195
bcantrill wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read many, many, many answers to this question, I don't think that a good liar has a particularly easy time answering this question -- or certainly not in a way that gets them further consideration! And yes, it's many hours of work -- but the work itself that we are doing is quite hard, and if someone washes out in the application process because it feels unduly arduous, we are likely not a fit for one another…

Eh, it also excludes people that don't have spectacular long-term memory, or people that don't keep a diary about bugs that they've chased down at work. Personally, I think you're overfitting to fight cheating, but maybe you work at a desirable enough place that you can afford to exclude so many people but still get enough good candidates. IMO a good question provides the necessary context itself, and the candidate's…

Agreed completely. This problem borders on that common category of questions which test whether the applicant shares a specific fine-grained flavor of nerdiness as the interviewer, rather than whether the candidate is a good fit for the job.
Post reply on HN