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

"You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 266 posts

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#111

Post by nicbou »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #4
gustavus wrote: post #3

AI Detection services are the oiliest of snake oils. Seems like education is going to need to change drastically in the next few years. Maybe we'll go all the way back to oral examinations again.

I doubt oral examinations come back in general. The undergrad model relys on massive classes, I don’t see how you can do oral exams in those 300 person classes without massive cheating as the first students tell everyone else what to expect.

One thing I don't understand is that despite automating more and more of the work away, we seem to have fewer and fewer humans available for anything that's left. I have to scan my own groceries, I can't ever talk to an actual human at any business, I order my food from a machine.

Where is everyone?

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#112

Post by Brian_K_White »

wfvr wrote: post #76
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a voiced AI chatbot to handle the simpler questions? Fight fire with fire.

An AI could generate relevant questions, follow-up questions during the oral, and evaluate the student at the end. The teacher could then review the whole conversarion at a glance and check/adjust the AI evaluation, which shouldn't take more time than grading an exam and be equally scalable. I've actually tested this with a VR app (with support for mobile also), and it actually works quite well.

So as a student, I'm forced to converse with an ai and take it seriously, when in reality I reject them all? The whole original post is an example of this being terrible and not a solution for anything.

It's bad enough that these things don't do a good job, don't basically function for the task, but what's as bad or worse is being forced to pretend you buy into it all like having to pretend to believe in some religion just to not get killed by everyone else.

I'm not a student and so far I have been free to judge all these ais as bad on a variety of fronts, and not use them (directly anyway, of course they are used behind the scenes in ways that affect me which I can't control). This would be hell.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#113

Post by tracerbulletx »

This kind of thing infuriates me so much. Not only are the detectors not accurate, but the damned thing gave it a 27% score that it was written by an AI which means it actually predicted it WASN'T written as AI and this teacher is threatening their success over that. It's absolutely absurd.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#115

Post by ElevenLathe »

booleandilemma wrote: post #24
_yb2s wrote: post #8

I would sue the teacher and school if this happened to me… total BS. Also plagarism and having other people do your work, or even take exams for you is as old as time. How is AI any different? Some trust is in order here. The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways.

The students are the ones paying to be educated, if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways. The problem is the cheater will then enter into society and tell people "I'm a graduate of $prestigious_university". At that point they are cheating society. Would you want to work with people who cheated? Would you want your doctor to be someone who cheated?

The world is filled with (some would say entirely composed of) people who are cheating society, usually in much much worse ways.

Why would I care if I work with people who cheated at college? I work for a business that constantly cheats me, my coworkers, its customers, its suppliers, the government, and innocent people with no formal affiliation to the business at all. This is what businesses exist to do. The only people a business theoretically exists NOT to cheat is its investors, and their empirical record there is mixed at best.

I'm not in any position to evaluate if a doctor is doing a good job or not (almost nobody is, not even doctors themselves), but in principle I am not opposed to their cheating if it doesn't affect my "care" (i.e. my family doctor cheating on some exam about the esoterica of podiatry or some other specialty they would normally just refer me for).

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#116

Post by beej71 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #4
gustavus wrote: post #3

AI Detection services are the oiliest of snake oils. Seems like education is going to need to change drastically in the next few years. Maybe we'll go all the way back to oral examinations again.

I doubt oral examinations come back in general. The undergrad model relys on massive classes, I don’t see how you can do oral exams in those 300 person classes without massive cheating as the first students tell everyone else what to expect.

Scaling is an issue for sure--just having the time in the week is impossible without distributing the work to TAs, and administering oral exams is tough for TAs.

But you can do an oral exam along the lines of "explain to me how your project works" and that'll catch people who don't understand it regardless of whether or not they know the question in advance.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#117

Post by beej71 »

ineptech wrote: post #19
HDThoreaun wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt oral examinations come back in general. The undergrad model relys on massive classes, I don’t see how you can do oral exams in those 300 person classes without massive cheating as the first students tell everyone else what to expect.

Is there any value to those lectures, nowadays? I can see a PhD lecture on the fundamentals of virtually any academic topic, for free and at my leisure, on youtube and similar sites. Waking up at 8am to attend an in-person Geology 117 lecture with 300 other freshmen is probably as outdated as a fax machine. Perhaps the next step is, education that isn't based on personal instruction isn't rare enough to be worth payi…

The value is the interaction. I try to have a discussion about the topic. You can read all about it on the website, but here's where I can ask you questions to see if you get it and we can discuss and clarify.

(Now, I grant you, in a room of 300, interaction is severely limited. I'm lucky my classes tend to have fewer than 20 people.)

If I give a lecture that you could have just watched a video of, I fell short.

It's tough to get right. I'm still working on it.

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#118

Post by [deleted] »

fzzzy wrote: post #30
Miraste wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if they cheat they are only cheating themselves anyways. I've heard people say this a lot. It's a very old-school liberal arts perspective that doesn't fit with the modern world. In practice, for most students, education is a third-place benefit of university behind 1. the certificate and 2. networking.

So then who cares if they got an education? If they want to pay for 1 and 2 but didn't get an education, why does it matter.

[deleted]

Re: "You have a 27% 'AI' issue in here"

#120

Post by unsupp0rted »

wccrawford wrote: post #16

When I was in college, they were going to put carpet in the science labs, and a few of us thought it was a really stupid, dangerous idea. We started a petition and asked for signatures at the on-campus cafe. After a few days, the administrators asked us into their office for a chat. They asked us stupid questions and tried to talk us out of our petition. When it didn't work, they eventually caved and didn't do the ca…

Why were they so intent on carpet for the science labs?

I mean, why change the flooring type at all?

Post reply on HN