271–280 of 447 posts
Trust goes offline. The value shift is happening in realtime as more in-person events, offline meetups take more value over digital communications and meetups. You can forge in the digital space but the real you is in-person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kind of approach is the root of (the US's) hustle culture. Instead of receiving a fair score, you get a zero and need to "hustle" and challenge your teacher. The teacher effectively filtered out the shy boys/girls who are not brave enough to "hustle." Gracefully.
This is completely incorrect. Hustle culture is what made kids cheat in the first place. She didn't ask them to challenge them, she asked them additional questions. The test already asks them questions. If you are really shy, a culture where no one cheats is far better because your actual ability and intelligence shines through
Cheaters and non cheaters were punished in exactly the same way. Effectively cheating gave you an advantage and being shy gave you disadvantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you've never read the English of a Dutch person ;) During my PhD defense I was told I "should have checked with a native speaker." Pre-LLMs, I'd go to my American colleague and she'd mostly remove text and rewrite some bit to make texts much more readable. Nowadays, often I put my text into the LLM, and say: Make more concise, include all original points, don't be enthusiastic, use business style writing. And…
I am telling you my own preferences, as a native speaker of English. I would rather read my coworkers' original output in their voice than read someone else's writing (including a machine edit of their own text).
I understand the sentiment, even appreciate it, but there are books that draw you into a story when your eyes hit the paper, and there are books that don't and induce yawning instead (on the same topic). That is a skill issue.
Perhaps I should add that using the LLM does not make me faster in any way, maybe even slower. But it makes the end results so much more pleasant.
"If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter". Now I can, but in similar time.
One of my students recently came to me with an interesting dilemma. His sister had written (without AI tools) an essay for another class, and her teacher told her that an "AI detection tool" had classified it as having been written by AI with "100% confidence". He was going to give her a zero on the assignment. Putting aside the ludicrous confidence score, the student's question was: how could his sister convince the…
but if u talk like this boss i had, then obv ur a human, kthx
Great incentives. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT just told me to put the turkey in my toaster oven legs facing the door, and you think it can replace school. Unless there is a massive architectural change that can be provably verified by third parties, this can never be. I’d hate for my unschooled surgeon to check an llm while I’m under.
What's the alternate if someone didn't know something during a procedure? Just wing it? Getting another data point from an LLM seems beneficial to me.
Calculator analogy is extremely inaccurate, understandably people keep doing this comparison. The premise is that calculator didn't take bookkeepers' job, but instead it helped them.
First of all calculator do one job and does it very well, you never question it because it solely works with numbers. But AI wants to be everything, calculator, translator, knowledge base etc.. And, it's very confident at everything all the time until you start to question it, and even then it continues to lie. Because sadly current AI products' purpose isn't to give you accurate answer, it's about making you believe that it's giving you credible information.
More importantly calculators are not connected to the internet, and they are not capable of creating profile of an individual.
It's sad to see big players push this agenda to make people believe that they don't need to think anymore, AI will do everything for them.
In college I had a professor assign us to write a 100% plagiarized paper. You had to highlight every word in a color associated with the source. You couldn't plagiarize more then one sequential sentence from a single source. It ended up being harder then writing an ordinary paper but taught us all a ton about citation and originality. It was a really cool exercise. I imagine something similar could be done to teach s…
Reminds me of that thing Olmo3 has in the web demo, where it shows you a trace for a selected sentence generated by the LLM and points you at the exact document in the training data it comes from verbatim. If they all had that it would be really trivial to verify sources, and more or less does that exact exercise for you at a press of a button.
Following to see what they do in the future.
In my CS undergrad I had Doug Lea as a professor, really fantastic professor (best teacher I have ever had, bar none). He had a really novel way to handle homework hand ins, you had to demo the project. So you got him to sit down with you, you ran the code, he would ask you to put some inputs in (that were highly likely to be edge cases to break it). Once that was sufficient, he would ask you how you did different th…
Maybe as a society we can take some of the productivity gains from AI and funnel them into moving teaching away from scantrons and formulaic essays. I want to be optimistic.
I did nothing in high school and then by 19 for fun on Saturdays I was checking out 5 non-fiction books from the library and spending all Saturday reading.
There was no inspiring teacher or anything like that for me that caused this. At 16 I only cared about girls and maneuvering within the high school social order.
The only thing I can think of that would have changed things for me is if the math club were the cool kids and the football team were the outcasts.
At 16 anything intellectual seemed too remote to bother. That is why I would suspect the real variable is ultimately how much the parents care about grades. Mine did not care at all so there was no way my 16 year old self was going to become intrinsically motivated to grow intellectually.
All AI would have done for me in high school would have been swapping a language model for copying my friend's homework.
One of my students recently came to me with an interesting dilemma. His sister had written (without AI tools) an essay for another class, and her teacher told her that an "AI detection tool" had classified it as having been written by AI with "100% confidence". He was going to give her a zero on the assignment. Putting aside the ludicrous confidence score, the student's question was: how could his sister convince the…
She can't because she didn't write the essay herself, obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention there'd be at least a few students too timid to challenge the teacher, even if they knew they got it right.
That's a valid and useful lesson, especially for the shy students. Arguably, it's probably more important than whatever the question on the test was. The world at large rarely accommodates shy people. Coping skills are essential, even if they are unpleasant.