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

531–540 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#531

Post by 00F_ »

barking_biscuit wrote: post #448
00F_ wrote: post #327

the world has changed dramatically in only one year. these advancements in AI are talked about everywhere and by everyone. in 2018 i warned people i knew and i wrote many comments online warning people that huge changes were coming. almost every single person on HN insisted that GTP was just a parlor trick because it would ramble sometimes, get stuck in loops and overall did not demonstrate the insane level of lucidi…

I'm trying to work out whether or not the right thing to do is just to help work towards ushering in AGI by whatever contribution I can make, or whether to scream into the hurricane. Screaming into the hurricane feels pointless, and I generally agree that on balance AGI is likely to be net negative. Overall I just feel somewhat confused.

mention to people in real life and online that you are worried about AI. it doesnt cost anything and it makes a real difference.

Re: CheatGPT

#532

Post by zeckalpha »

JohnFen wrote: post #515
djleni wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say humans aren’t great at assessing the truth or accuracy of anything either.

My point isn't about how good or bad this is being done. Humans, at least some of the time, attempt to assess truth and accuracy of things. LLMs do not attempt to do this. That's why I think it's incorrect to say they're bad at it. Even attempting it isn't in their behavior set.

Where is the organ that does that? My impression is everything the brain does is homomorphic to what LLMs do.

Re: CheatGPT

#533

Post by dinkumthinkum »

iameli wrote: post #524
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re comparing a LLM to yourself, really? I wonder how many people talking about this know much about computers. Your cognitive capability is much more complex than ChatGPT. I’m not sure why people are convinced that a Turing Machine can simulate it, let alone do it efficiently. Do you believe that the way you think is at all like ChatGPT. That you are both processing text is not evidence. How many watts of power d…

Your argument is that my brain is more energy-efficient than ChatGPT, therefore... ChatGPT is incapable of "understanding"?

I’m not arguing that it is more energy efficient. I’m showing the obvious fact that there is a massive scale difference in the amount of energy and that one is capable of much more complex problem solving which seems to indicate that the two things are fundamentally different.

Re: CheatGPT

#534

Post by dinkumthinkum »

brookst wrote: post #508
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most math classes are taught without graphing calculators and when they are used it is minimal. This is fundamentally different. This literally is being people trying to substitute actually know or successfully being evaluated to do anything. The advocates of “bringing down higher education with AI” also consider competence to be “ableism”.

I support using AI in education because it will be in the work environment. It seems insane that anyone would want to teach students on slide rules and typewriters and then send them out to a world of computers and word processors. And I have no idea where your “ableism” comment came from. Just trying to inject some culture war?

This business of “ableism” is comes up all the time with ChatGPT discussions. I don’t know what your slide rule comment means. Even with calculators we expected students to be able to calculate without a calculator. I really don’t see how you expect people to do “complex” tasks if they cannot do simple ones. Is this magic?

Re: CheatGPT

#535

Post by dinkumthinkum »

BoorishBears wrote: post #243
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if you can’t make a binary tree, what do you really know about programming? If ChatGPT is so great, why would even need a job interview, why not just eliminate the jobs altogether?

You know, the only thing I get more sure of over the years is that defining a "good programmer" is hard Now, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but if one seriously conflates being able to write a binary tree with knowing how to program... they're at least making defining the antonym a bit easier. - Also no one is saying ChatGPT is "so great" in this specific case, if anything the point is that ChatGPT ca…

I’m not trying to be mean but “conflating” is not the same as “necessary.” There is a very common notion of “necessary but not sufficient”. Yes, I think if you don’t know how to make a binary tree, you don’t know much about programming. The converse is not true.

Re: CheatGPT

#536

Post by antifa »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #405

With all these ChatGPT academic apocalypse stories, I keep thinking - what the hell is wrong with students, that they don't want to actually learn the subjects they've enrolled in? If your goal is to fake-learn and have ChatGPT do your homework, just drop out already. You're paying big tuition for no educational benefit. Maybe your degree gets your foot in the door at some company, but it won't be too long before the…

> what the hell is wrong with students, that they don't want to actually learn the subjects they've enrolled in?

To play devil's advocate, half of my classes were relevant and interesting, the other half were bloated pointless time wasting filler.

There are a lot of classes I didn't take, but wanted to, because they weren't required and your optional electives are a tiny number of credits.

Re: CheatGPT

#537

Post by novok »

shadowgovt wrote: post #179
novok wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with widespread cheating even if you don't cheat yourself is it essentially reduces the credit rating of your $50k program and has knock on effects elsewhere, like worse interview loops. And if the 'cheater's workload' becomes the norm, you the non-cheater can be literally failed out of programs and scholarships because you didn't keep up.

At what point does "not keeping up with the cheaters" become "There is a more efficient way to do the task and this student's grade reflects they are choosing the inefficient approach?" I'm reminded of the stories of employees getting busted because they were assigned a job so trivially automatable they either did automate it or they used some find-labor service to delegate it for a fraction of the cost out of their…

It's the same logic of letting a machine do a gym exercise vs doing it yourself, you're missing the point of it, because otherwise the gym exercise is mostly useless.

Re: CheatGPT

#538

Post by fidgewidge »

nemo44x wrote: post #499
fidgewidge wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but I don't quite get the difference between exams and coursework here.

Re: CheatGPT

#539

Post by jasmer »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #352
jasmer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? By this reasonning nobody should ever learn anything, because it's all 'trivially doable' by machine. Like 'addition' and 'subtraction'. So let's gaslight those dumb teachers by saying they should make up 'better' homework assignments?

I don’t generally like the word “gaslight” as it is normally used by the unsavory but in this case, I think you used it perfectly. That is exactly what people are doing, except for the extremely naive ones. I don’t really know why, though?

Gaslighting is just a term for a social interaction that didn't exist in our vocabulary before. That's it. Which is different than terms like 'woke' for which we have different connotations and contexts.

Re: CheatGPT

#540

Post by lobocinza »

kurthr wrote: post #324
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…

As a first year grad student, I had a professor in material science who gave the same assignments and mostly same exams every year. Of course a) I didn't know this b) using previous works was prohibited c) cheating was rampant. I only found this out after getting heavily marked down on the first HW and joining a study group which was moderately chaste (eg only used the answers to check our work before turning it in).…

Reminds me of a girl from my chemistry lab group on college that replaced our experimental findings at the last minute without telling us because ours was drastically different than the "answer" from past semester works. The experiment was to identify a substance using it's density or something like that. She didn't stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the professor used a different substance on that semester. That bothered because while I didn't take my graduation seriously I really cared for rigor and measured things twice.

Cheating was prevalent in certain situations. I had a teacher that would leave the room during exams leaving the students to do whatever they wanted, which included the whole class hot debating the answer of each question. An engagement level that would never occur in a normal class.

In the CS lab (C++ for engineers) it was common for the student that finished the assignment first to mail the code to the whole class. Most would simply copy it, leave early and call it a day. Many also struggled with programming and put it in the category of "things that are hard and will not need to know".

Post reply on HN