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

"AI", students, and epistemic crisis

miniver.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#121

Post by deadbabe »

tomhoward wrote: post #74
deadbabe wrote: post #22

I really don’t see any other solution to this kind of problem except for one: LLMs must become perfect, and never be wrong. Relying on kids to do cross referencing and deeper fact checks into everything they ask an LLM is just not going to happen at scale.

Maybe it’s the opposite; kids need to learn that LLM’s can bullshit just like every other person and institution can bullshit, and the most important skill they can have is verification of information, no matter where it’s coming from.

If everybody bullshits what is the point of not bullshitting yourself?

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#122

Post by rsanek »

cheschire wrote: post #62
huimang wrote: post #27

I feel like this is a bit overblown. Growing up we heard, ad nauseam, that "wikipedia is not a reliable source". People just need to state the same thing about LLMs- they aren't reliable, but can potentially point you to primary sources that -are- reliable. Once the shininess of the new toy wears off, people will adjust.

Well even before Wikipedia… remember calculators being banned? I think you’re right, we will adjust. Curriculum development will start to include new checkpoints and controls.

Aren't calculators still banned in primary education? From what I know, you cannot use them during most tests.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#123

Post by shepherdjerred »

huimang wrote: post #27

I feel like this is a bit overblown. Growing up we heard, ad nauseam, that "wikipedia is not a reliable source". People just need to state the same thing about LLMs- they aren't reliable, but can potentially point you to primary sources that -are- reliable. Once the shininess of the new toy wears off, people will adjust.

> wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is as good as anything else.

As an example, I frequently use Wikipedia to read about history, computer science topics (e.g. how to implement an algorithm), or scientific topics.

The exception is current events, but even then, I suspect that Wikipedia is not any more biased than the news.

I'm open to having my mind changed, though.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#124

Post by bostik »

werdnk wrote: post #31
Angostura wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration will be reduced We will be able to negotiate excellent trade deals outside the EU effortlessly The EU need our trade so badly we will be able to negotiate a seamless trade deal with them … and many others.

I think believing the first lie that conservatives would really reduce immigration is the product of trusting politicians too much. Another faction of the pro-Brexiteers would think of the system in terms of a uniparty. The fundamentalists like Farage have no chance of getting elected as PM in the British system, though he did get an MP seat now. Would things change if Farage were PM? I'm cynical, probably not.

There was a fundamental lie / delusion at the heart of the claim. The second thing a trade deal with another country implies "allow more of our nationals to migrate, and make it easier for them to come over". (The first thing is obviously: "let our products in".)

And this can be seen from the raw numbers too. Before brexit, the annual net migration to UK was about 300k. After brexit, the annual net migration to UK is ~700k.[0] (745k in 2022, 680k in 2023.) And quite a bit of that from the fresh trade partners.

The best way I have heard anyone describe the disaster that's Brexit was as "nostalgic self-immolation for the population who still dream of the Britain where faces were white, passports were blue, and the map was Imperial Pink."

0: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06...

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#125

Post by ryandv »

tatrajim wrote: post #102

And, on a related note for education, AI is quickly obviating the need to master and plumb the depths of foreign languages. Dating myself, doubtless, but as an undergraduate, it was an unalloyed joy to study ancient Greek and read Plato and Euripides in the original, however haltingly. And later Korean, Japanese, and Chinese beckoned providing a lifetime of rich understanding of life outside the confines of English.…

Presuming that those languages exist within OpenAI's training dataset. Try to have a conversation in Rinconada with ChatGPT; my last attempt led to its admission that it had no proficiency in this language. You will have to find a native speaker, and their numbers are dwindling as Tagalog and English are being favored in education - the latter thanks to American linguistic imperialism.

The AI does not circumscribe all of reality; not all of reality is captured on the internet.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#126

Post by Perceval »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #123
huimang wrote: post #27

I feel like this is a bit overblown. Growing up we heard, ad nauseam, that "wikipedia is not a reliable source". People just need to state the same thing about LLMs- they aren't reliable, but can potentially point you to primary sources that -are- reliable. Once the shininess of the new toy wears off, people will adjust.

> wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is as good as anything else. As an example, I frequently use Wikipedia to read about history, computer science topics (e.g. how to implement an algorithm), or scientific topics. The exception is current events, but even then, I suspect that Wikipedia is not any more biased than the news. I'm open to having my mind changed, though.

> Wikipedia is as good as anything else.

Encyclopedias – including Wikipedia – are not acceptable sources for college-level work certainly. They are tertiary literature, which can provide an overview to someone trying to get a toehold into a subject, and which can hopefully point them toward primary and secondary sources. But tertiary sources are not typically allowable citations for college research.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#127

Post by lionkor »

par1970 wrote: post #92
lionkor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context an axiom is a nonlogical axiom, in other words an assumption, one that is not to be questioned or discussed

Okay. So, in your original comment are you asserting that teachers are mostly telling students to believe propositions without giving any epistemic justification for those propositions?

Yes, as part of teaching one topic, teachers have to tell students to "not worry about" some other related topic and just take it as given fact, even when that's not technically true

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#128

Post by shepherdjerred »

Perceval wrote: post #126
shepherdjerred wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is as good as anything else. As an example, I frequently use Wikipedia to read about history, computer science topics (e.g. how to implement an algorithm), or scientific topics. The exception is current events, but even then, I suspect that Wikipedia is not any more biased than the news. I'm open to having my mind changed, though.

> Wikipedia is as good as anything else. Encyclopedias – including Wikipedia – are not acceptable sources for college-level work certainly. They are tertiary literature, which can provide an overview to someone trying to get a toehold into a subject, and which can hopefully point them toward primary and secondary sources. But tertiary sources are not typically allowable citations for college research.

Yes, you are right that Wikipedia is inappropriate in academic settings.

But, this thread has discussed the reliability of Wikipedia.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#129

Post by wholinator2 »

acnyy wrote: post #113
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, fellow boomer. And who do you think is the populace most likely to fall for Nigerian princes and believe in 5G Bill Gates vax chips?

People who read academic publications and do not see much of a fundamental difference between tattoos that contain information like a barcode and RFID chips that could contain the same information: https://news.rice.edu/news/2019/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vac... Or perhaps people who have been confused by conspiracy sites like npr.org and make the mental leap that this would be used for other purposes: https://www.npr…

Well the good thing about the vaccine record tattoo is that the skin is always transforming and rebuilding. It would be impossible to get a set of literal quantum dots to stay forever. Apparently the record would only be viable for 5 years.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#130

Post by wholinator2 »

acnyy wrote: post #113
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, fellow boomer. And who do you think is the populace most likely to fall for Nigerian princes and believe in 5G Bill Gates vax chips?

People who read academic publications and do not see much of a fundamental difference between tattoos that contain information like a barcode and RFID chips that could contain the same information: https://news.rice.edu/news/2019/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vac... Or perhaps people who have been confused by conspiracy sites like npr.org and make the mental leap that this would be used for other purposes: https://www.npr…

Also, the microchip has been around for a long time. I strongly doubt at least modern America could ever get close to even 25% adoption of something like that. There'd be riots, which i'd welcome. Article says there's 4000 users in Sweden which is pretty limited and they're all startup people. The same people that buy all the other constant tracking devices that companies constantly put out. Also i have doubts that full, total authentication will ever really work. Like, we've had decades and made some progress but were still a far far cry from universal auth into all our accounts, even with our phones. All it takes is for one service to go down, or for a competing service to crop up before the first one achieves critical mass and you'll be trapped in the change cycle forever
Post reply on HN