451–460 of 1001 posts
If AI detection cannot be 100% accurate, I do not believe it is an appropriate solution for judging the futures of millions of students and young people. Time to move on. Either from the tech or from the essay format. In either case, we need to change our standards around mastery of subject matter.
AI sucks, but on the other hand Judges and police officers arent 100% accurate too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's test your skills as a plagiarism detector. Below are two paragraphs. One of them was written by an LLM, one by a human. I have only altered whitespace in order to make them scan the same. Can you tell which is which? How much would you bet that you are correct? A. The Pathfinder and The Deerslayer stand at the head of Cooper's novels as artistic creations. There are others of his works which contain parts as pe…
One is the original, the second one is an AI verbatim copy https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172-h/3172-h.htm#:~:te... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best method for assessing performance when learning is as old as the world: assess the effort, not how well the result complies with some requirements. If the level of effort made is high, but the outcome does not comply in some way, praise is due. If the outcome complies, but the level of effort is low, there is no reason for praise (what are you praising? mere compliance?) and you must have set a wrong bar. Not…
I've found that in adulthood, I've still been judged on results, not effort, and unless we're going to drastically reduce student:teacher ratios, I don't see how you even could judge on effort. Some kids are going to learn more quickly than others, and for them, no effort will be required. At best you might assign them busywork, but that doesn't take effort just as it wouldn't take effort for an adult to do the work.
It's like looking at a hand carved match-stick judging the result as low effort, not knowing that they started with a seed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I studied physics at Exeter University they still used the tutorial system and finals. Tutorials were held fortnightly; the tutorial groups were typically three or four students. There was no obligation to turn up to lectures or even tutorials. You just had to pass the end of year exams to be allowed to continue to the final. The class of degree that was awarded depended on the open note final exam and the repor…
What about those of us who can explain our ideas and thinking clearly and in great detail in writing but would struggle to even prove we've heard of the topic orally?
Of course the current setup works badly for those who explain it much better by speaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Written assay evaluation is not and has never been an effective evaluation. It was always a cost saving measure because allocating 30min face to face time with each individual student for each class is such a gigantic cost for the institution that they cannot even imagine doing it. Think about that the next time you look at your student debt, it couldn’t even buy you 30min time per class individually with the teacher…
When I studied physics at Exeter University they still used the tutorial system and finals. Tutorials were held fortnightly; the tutorial groups were typically three or four students. There was no obligation to turn up to lectures or even tutorials. You just had to pass the end of year exams to be allowed to continue to the final. The class of degree that was awarded depended on the open note final exam and the repor…
Yeah, the General Problems exam was a nightmare, I think the professors competed each year to come up with the toughest questions. Getting 50% was an excellent score.
It did force you to learn all the material though, especially as at the end of 3-4 years you may have forgotten some of it, like Optics or whatever. It was pretty hardcore though, especially compared to my friends studying other subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose we all get from school what we put into it. I forgot the name of the guy, who said it, but he was some big philosophy lecturer at Harvard and his view on the matter ( heavy reading course and one student left a course review - "not reading assigned reading did not hurt me at all") was ( paraphrased): "This guy is an idiot if he thinks the point of paying $60k a semester of parents money is to sit here and l…
He's paying for the degree and the professional network. Studying would be a waste of time.
I could go on like this, but I won't. Each of us has a choice how we play the cards we are dealt.
I accept your point, but this point reinforces a perspective I heard from my accountant family member, who clearly can identify price, but has a hard time not equating it with value. I hesitate to use the word wrong, because it is pragmatic, but it is also rather wasteful ( if not outright dumb ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody knows how to fix the root causes.
[flagged]
If AI detection cannot be 100% accurate, I do not believe it is an appropriate solution for judging the futures of millions of students and young people. Time to move on. Either from the tech or from the essay format. In either case, we need to change our standards around mastery of subject matter.
My comment from a few days ago.
The origin was a conversation with a girl who said she'd been pulled into a professor's office and told she was going to be reported to whatever her university's equivalent of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity is over using AI - a matter of academic honesty.
The professor made it clear in the syllabus that "no AI" was allowed to be used, spent the first few days of class repeating it, and yet, this student had been assessed by software to have used it to write a paper.
She had used Grammarly, not ChatGPT, she contended. They were her words and ideas, reshaped, not the sole product of a large language model.
In a world where style suggestion services are built into everything from email to keyboards, what constitutes our own words? Why have ghostwritten novels topped the NYT Best Sellers for decades while we rejected the fitness of a young presidential hopeful over a plagiarized speech?
Integrity doesn't exist without honesty. Ghostwriting is when one person shapes another person's truth into something coherent and gives them credit. A plagiarized speech is when someone takes another person's truth as their own, falsely. What lines define that in tools to combat the latter from the former, and how do we communicate and enforce what is and isn't appropriate?
If AI detection cannot be 100% accurate, I do not believe it is an appropriate solution for judging the futures of millions of students and young people. Time to move on. Either from the tech or from the essay format. In either case, we need to change our standards around mastery of subject matter.