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

491–500 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#491

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

raydev wrote: post #481
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #308

As a CS professor myself, I don't think ChatGPT really creates entirely new problems for assessment, but rather makes problems that we had been sweeping under the carpet more obvious and harder to ignore. Any assignment that can be cheated by using ChatGPT could already be cheated before by asking a friend, an expert or paying someone else to do it. But most teachers assumed this doesn't happen often, and thus acted…

> asking a friend, an expert or paying someone else to do it Surely you understand ChatGPT is infinitely more scalable. How many people can just "ask a friend" or have a spare money to pay someone else multiple times?

That's exactly what I'm saying, right?

The problem has always been there but it was largely ignored because it wasn't that frequent (although I think it's definitely more frequent than most people make themselves believe).

Now that everyone has a "friend" to ask thanks to ChatGPT, people begin to care. How dare the plebs have the same options to cheat as privileged students!

Re: CheatGPT

#492

Post by insaider »

What if you actually asked the students what they think the best approach is? I wonder what they'd have to say when confronted with optimizing their own education.

As a CS grad I often felt such a large percentage of the syllabus was legacy theory I'd (mostly correctly) never need. Perhaps this can be the positive impetus to get teachers to really rethink syllabuses from a more practical, useful view point. "here students, use ChatGPT and all the tools available to you to create x..."

Re: CheatGPT

#493

Post by marginalia_nu »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #291
marginalia_nu wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there really a basis for such an assumption? Don't returns tend to diminish with effort, rather than increase?

Technology tends to grow with a sigmoid curve. Extremely fast growth at the start, and then it slows down and eventually plateaus and new technology repeats the cycle. The only question is where on the curve are we for LLMs and AI in general?

I see this sigmoid growth prediction quite often. What is the basis for assuming it will follow this shape? What are some examples of this happening?

Re: CheatGPT

#494

Post by [deleted] »

bcantrill wrote: post #173
epicureanideal wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, this sounds extremely difficult and not in a good way. That sounds like many many hours of writing work, to describe a problem that might be many years in the past, that might have been solved by extremely intricate methods that are easy to forget, using technologies that are now not commonly in use, etc. A good question to ask about each interview question might be: would a good liar have an easier tim…

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…

[deleted]

Re: CheatGPT

#495

Post by notahacker »

bcantrill wrote: post #173
epicureanideal wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, this sounds extremely difficult and not in a good way. That sounds like many many hours of writing work, to describe a problem that might be many years in the past, that might have been solved by extremely intricate methods that are easy to forget, using technologies that are now not commonly in use, etc. A good question to ask about each interview question might be: would a good liar have an easier tim…

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…

Sounds like one where somebody does pretty well out of finding an interesting example from the internet and tweaking it slightly. They might not survive an interview asking them to expand upon it in an interview, but they could still succeed in passing the screening better than people recounting boring bugs they actually fixed...

(If ChatGPT wasn't busy I'd be tempted to see whether it can manage that, or whether your phrasing throws it off)

Re: CheatGPT

#496

Post by esperent »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #479
josephg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an interview question. If you draw a blank on that, rephrase the question for yourself to something like this: "When you think of bugs you've recently fixed in your code, what comes to mind? Which bug had the most interesting story?". If that feels illegal to you, you can check with your interviewer: "I can't remember many weird old bugs, but can I tell you about a bug I fixed the other week?". Interviews aren't…

I fix plenty of weird bugs. But I don't build a reverse index in my mind of "weird bugs".

Can you think of any bug from that last five months that you could talk about for five minutes in a way that makes you look smart for solving it? That's all you need to do here.

Re: CheatGPT

#498

Post by jefftk »

asdff wrote: post #475
jefftk wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're now well past the original proposal of a Raspberry Pi. And people who need different input devices for ergonomic reasons (laptops keyboards are not a good fit for many people) are going to push back hard. The device can make network connections, right? Someone's going to come up with a very short program you can type by hand, compile, and then pull down arbitrary other code over the network.

Honestly I appreciate the exercise pentesting my hypothetical academic computer. Lets drop full network access entirely then. Allow it to only connect to a university intranet for assignment deposits, along with plenty of logging of what happened on the device. Lets rule out the "typing verbatim" method too by checking whether the user typed in all in one go or spent time debugging and revising using our own keylogge…

I do think you can get to something where cheating is enough more work than doing it honestly (or at least you need to manually type things over).

But while we started with a "just issue an rPi" we're now at "issue a modified laptop running a large amount of custom security software".

Re: CheatGPT

#499

Post by nemo44x »

fidgewidge wrote: post #472
nemo44x wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re saying that people that were allowed into their programs/universities because of quotas and not merit struggle to prove competency through assessment.

Wouldn't that be an issue with point in time assessment too?

How so? When you’re admitting under powered and under prepared people into a program then they will fail. Unless you dumb down the assessment and curriculum. Which universities have done to make their numbers achieve equity.

Re: CheatGPT

#500

Post by josephg »

esperent wrote: post #496
ryanjshaw wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fix plenty of weird bugs. But I don't build a reverse index in my mind of "weird bugs".

Can you think of any bug from that last five months that you could talk about for five minutes in a way that makes you look smart for solving it? That's all you need to do here.

You don’t even need a bug where you look smart for solving it. Eg, as an interviewer I also love stories that go like this:

“There was this memory leak in some C++ code that took us weeks to track down that I’m still kicking myself for not finding earlier. It was totally my fault. Let me tell you what happened … … So the moral of the story is -fsanitize=address is smarter than me. But wow did I learn a lot about my tools from that.”

Post reply on HN