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

Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 288 posts

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#191

Post by JohnFen »

thadt wrote: post #28

The ability to 'cheat' on written assignments has always been a possibility. With the rise of the Internet, it became easier to source it from more places - with a counter balancing rise of plagiarism detectors. Now with Google, Grammarly and ChatGPT, it is trivial to copy/paste a pipeline with enough entropy to defeat many if not most detectors. I suspect the next generation of tools will be finish this cycle - we w…

> If you want someone to produce a piece of writing about something, how they produced it is less important than the result.

I very much disagree with this in an educational setting. Part of the point of writing in the classroom is to learn how to write. How it's produced matters a great deal.

Same with programming assignments. Using CoPilot and ChatGPT means that you're avoiding some of the very things that you're there to learn.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#192

Post by yamtaddle »

masswerk wrote: post #183
anotheryou wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what you get if you can't make teachers embrace technology. Make it mandatory to use chatGPT for writing aid, do live tests to prove true knowledge.

For years, we've had a strong trend to make even the basic workings of a computer appear like magic and users not bothering how it does what. Now it may be a bit too much to expect a teacher to understand how LLMs work and what the consequences are. (E.g., do they know how a file system works, what happens, when they move a document from one folder to another?) – We may have to revise how we present computers and how…

The majority of normal users haven't really grasped stuff like how to use the filesystem—and I mean at a very basic level—the entire time I've been computing (since the early '90s). Let alone how it works. I'm not sure it's a trend unless the trend is "more people using computers". More of a static state of most people not understanding or caring to understand stuff that geeks like us have long forgotten we ever had to learn.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#193

Post by ragnese »

ngngngng wrote: post #185

Is there a difference between cheating in school and hacking school? I think so. I almost never studied for math tests in University. They were all multiple choice and I found it easy to logic out the only possible answer to the question just by looking at the choices. Worst case if I was in a hurry I'd get a B on an exam. I wasn't looking up the answers and skipping any work. I was just arriving at the prescribed op…

> Is there a difference between cheating in school and hacking school? I think so.

For sure. My anecdote is only tangentially related to the topic of this post, but I always told my physics 1 students that cheating (when it came to their homework) was a state of mind, rather than an action.

Most students had access to the solutions manual for their (very standard and popular) textbook, even though they weren't "supposed to". Several times I had students sheepishly admit to me that they had consulted the solutions manual, and still didn't understand the solution to a particular problem. That right there is an example of NOT cheating, because they consulted the solution with the proper mindset: they attempted the problem, got stuck, and THEN consulted a solution with the INTENTION OF LEARNING.

However, a student that just pulls out the solutions manual to quickly get the problems done without attempting it themselves were cheating in my view. It didn't often matter, anyway, because these students often did terribly on the exams and had trouble passing (who would've guessed?).

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#194

Post by JohnFen »

circuit10 wrote: post #173
hammyhavoc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a word prediction engine. It's just tokens and Bayesian inference. It has no understanding of what it's doing. If a math textbook has sentence x written in it, does the textbook know this information, or does it just have this information stored in it in a human-readable format? LLMs only present their stored data in a human-readable format on the output, the data set itself isn't readable.

But LLMs use and reason with the data, so the word “know” is probably appropriate. Think of it as a analogy, if you want, but it’s reasonable to draw a comparison with what humans do. Even without the reasoning part I’m sure people already use the word “know” to describe how software is able to perform a task or make use of information. “It has no understanding” I keep seeing this claim, I don’t understand what it’s…

I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding.

LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#195

Post by knaik94 »

RheingoldRiver wrote: post #107
sidewndr46 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was a student over a decade ago, I'd lose my fucking mind if I had to use physical books. There was simply not enough time to go get books off the shelf and complete all my assignments. Everything was done digitally, I can't think of a single exception in college. I once turned in a math exam written using LaTeX and the professor initially declined to grade it. I did concede that I hadn't followed the…

Huh what major were you? As a math major we used exclusively physical books and it was fine. There was one time that the professor wanted us to use a theorem in a homework assignment from a book he neglected to assign to us for the class. The entire class collaborated on that problem set and emailed him for help, and he admitted he'd made a mistake and lent us a copy of the book. That was probably the biggest can't-u…

We used digital textbooks, in my entire computer science curriculum, we were never forced to use a physical book. In the last few years, "renting" etextbooks from Amazon caught on. The only exception was a suggestion, not a requirement, to buy the ds algo book as a reference for the future. I can't imagine having to use a physical textbook, the find/control + f feature really speeds up learning.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#196

Post by JohnFen »

Kiro wrote: post #168
macleginn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, though. Q to ChatGPT: ‘Was this text generated by ChatGPT? "The ability to 'cheat' on written assignments has always been a possibility. With the rise of the Internet, it became easier to source it from more places - with a counter balancing rise of plagiarism detectors. Now with Google, Grammarly and ChatGPT, it is trivial to copy/paste a pipeline with enough entropy to defeat many if not most detectors.…

Seriously what? You're surprised that a large language model is not a sentient being? Am I the only one who remembers that just a couple of years ago chat bots responded with "Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Do you need help with booking a ticket?" to 99.999% of all questions? A bot responding with something coherent to an example like yours was complete science-fiction, and now we suddenly take it for granted and…

> ridicule it when it's not factually correct.

I think the ridicule is not really directed at the software, it's directed at the absurd amount of hype around the topic.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#197

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #156

Nothing in the professor’s message says or even implies the whole class was failed. Did people just stop learning how to read in the last few years?

Nah, they've always done that - understanding whatever they expected to read/hear/see, instead of what was written/said/shown.

Probably a feature of the cognitive apparatus, wouldn't surprise me if complaints about it were found in cuneiform tablets.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#198

Post by hammyhavoc »

JohnFen wrote: post #194
circuit10 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But LLMs use and reason with the data, so the word “know” is probably appropriate. Think of it as a analogy, if you want, but it’s reasonable to draw a comparison with what humans do. Even without the reasoning part I’m sure people already use the word “know” to describe how software is able to perform a task or make use of information. “It has no understanding” I keep seeing this claim, I don’t understand what it’s…

I would say that "understanding" something means that you have a mental model of that thing. The more accurate and complete that mental model is, the "deeper" the understanding. LLMs, as I (ahem) understand them, do not have models of the things they're writing about. They do have a model of language (or whatever symbolic system they were trained on), but that's where it ends.

I agree!

I asked ChatGPT "Does an LLM understand, or is it simply Bayesian inference?", and the most relevant part of its output:

"The model's understanding of language is derived from the vast amount of text it has been trained on. By capturing statistical regularities and patterns, an LLM can generate text that appears to be comprehensible and contextually appropriate. However, it's important to note that LLMs do not possess true understanding or consciousness. They lack semantic or conceptual understanding in the way humans do.

Overall, an LLM employs a combination of statistical techniques, including Bayesian inference, and pattern recognition to generate text that simulates understanding to a certain extent."

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#199

Post by NotOscarWilde »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #120
NotOscarWilde wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an (assistant) professor in theoretical CS, I see there are many bad approaches in the original post and mentioned in this discussion, but I strongly disagree with: > There are very simple and effective ways to teach your class that can't be cheated with AI. These professors are simply lazy and uncreative. I can attest to the following problems to good homework creation, from my own experiences playing wi…

For programming CS exams, you can try doing them in a computer lab with internet disabled. These exams should be allotted time much more than needed as one should not be testing for problem solving under strict time constraints. FYI its oral exams, not oral presentations. You give the student half an hour to solve a sequence of problems and gauge their thinking skills. Scales to perhaps 30 students at most.

> FYI its oral exams, not oral presentations.

I was not very clear about it, but I was discussing regular semester work, as opposed to final/midterm exams. Think courses that are strongly grounded in theory but need the students to experience the coursework, like Discrete Mathematics or Linear Programming.

"Oral presentations" in my case meant presenting a homework solution to the TA in person, in front of the class, and the TA accepting this solution live (or not).

At least at my university, the responsibility for homework structure and homework sheets lies fully on the lecturer, and the TAs are tasked with grading the homework/projects and leading the exercise sessions.

Oral exams are great if they can be done at scale, and I do use them. Some other teachers (as well as the administration) prefer written exams, as there is a clear proof of work that can be analyzed if grades are disputed.

Re: Texas professor fails entire class from graduating- claiming they used ChatGTP

#200

Post by masswerk »

yamtaddle wrote: post #192
masswerk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years, we've had a strong trend to make even the basic workings of a computer appear like magic and users not bothering how it does what. Now it may be a bit too much to expect a teacher to understand how LLMs work and what the consequences are. (E.g., do they know how a file system works, what happens, when they move a document from one folder to another?) – We may have to revise how we present computers and how…

The majority of normal users haven't really grasped stuff like how to use the filesystem—and I mean at a very basic level—the entire time I've been computing (since the early '90s). Let alone how it works. I'm not sure it's a trend unless the trend is "more people using computers". More of a static state of most people not understanding or caring to understand stuff that geeks like us have long forgotten we ever had…

My favorite comparison has always been a basic working knowledge of how we go around in a kitchen. We need to know what an oven is, and what a refrigerator is, where the knives are and where the dishes, and what each of these tools are for and how they basically work and how to use them. In computing, we've had a strong trend towards the "magic cupboard", which "just knows" for you what is needed. No need to know what's in the kitchen and how stuff works, this would be just too much for your brain. Open the cupboard once and it's the oven, open it another time, there's your knife, open it yet another time and accidentally throw your freshly baked cake in the waste bin…
Post reply on HN