121–130 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the way things are going, not knowing how to use AI will be like coming out not knowing about revision control
Isn't the selling point of AI that it does it for you? What's to learn?
Context helps immensely, for example. Think of what you can do that someone outside tech can't.
In a different one she just said so long as you say AI was used you’re fine to use it.
In the rest of them AI is considered cheating.
To say we have discrepancies in the rules in an understatement. No one seems to have the exact answer on how to do it. I personally feel like expecting Ph.D level work is the best method as of now, I’ve learned more by using AI to do things about my head than hard core studying for a semester.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe you chose to waste your time because you treated college as a way to get a piece paper instead of as the only time in your life when you are surrounded by experts who will spend an hour a week answering any questions you can think of.
No time wasted at all, that option is also trivially available outside of college, it's called "email". There's a whole industry in tricking new adults into believing that college is not about getting a piece of paper, it's gross, and it's avoidable. I paid off a year of unnecessary college debt in 1/4 of a year of doing real work I learned how to do in my free time. It's a trap and articles like this where colleges…
You just said that it was a waste of time. So was it or not?
> that option is also trivially available outside of college, it's called “email”.
How many experts have you cold emailed over the years and how much of their time have you taken?
I like this. Related, this semester I've been using handwritten quizzes in class. A simple change that's been one of the best things as it changed students' expectations of class prep. Kind of do the readings and sort of prep and you can coast in class. But if you need to write out quiz answers you're forced to know the material better as well as maintain the ability to express yourself. I also use low-point bonus qu…
I’ve been typing for years since the 80s. However, even in the 90s I found any extended period of handwriting to be painful and laborious. I don’t think I could handle an instructor that insisted on handwritten long form but I’d happily accept a compromise in the form of a typewriter.
In one of my classes the approach was the opposite, I’m expected to do Ph.D level work as an undergrad and am expected to use AI. In a different one she just said so long as you say AI was used you’re fine to use it. In the rest of them AI is considered cheating. To say we have discrepancies in the rules in an understatement. No one seems to have the exact answer on how to do it. I personally feel like expecting Ph.D…
In one of my classes the approach was the opposite, I’m expected to do Ph.D level work as an undergrad and am expected to use AI. In a different one she just said so long as you say AI was used you’re fine to use it. In the rest of them AI is considered cheating. To say we have discrepancies in the rules in an understatement. No one seems to have the exact answer on how to do it. I personally feel like expecting Ph.D…
How do you know you actually learned, instead of being fed slop by the AI that isn't true at all? If you didn't study, then I doubt you'll really know if the AI is lying to you or not. I have to wonder if your teacher will too, sounds like they have kind of checked-out from actually teaching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow it feels like the Loebner prize went away right at the dawn of the LLM. Is it correlated?
Yeah I definitely think LLMs contributed to its demise. To be honest, nobody in academic AI circles took it very seriously, because it kind of devolved into a contest over who could create the most convincing illusion of intelligence . Participants spent more time polishing up the natural language parsing aspects in conjunction with pre‑programming elaborate backstories for their chatbot's bios among other psychologi…
Isn't that really what all these AI companies are doing too? It sure seems like it is.
In one of my classes the approach was the opposite, I’m expected to do Ph.D level work as an undergrad and am expected to use AI. In a different one she just said so long as you say AI was used you’re fine to use it. In the rest of them AI is considered cheating. To say we have discrepancies in the rules in an understatement. No one seems to have the exact answer on how to do it. I personally feel like expecting Ph.D…
It's still a new tech so I'm not surprised a lot of teachers have different takes on it. But when it comes to education, I feel like different policies are reasonable. In some cases it's more likely to shortcut learning, and in other cases it's more likely to encourage learning. It's not entirely one or the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the selling point of AI that it does it for you? What's to learn?
"It does X for you" is the point of many technologies. You still require knowledge to work around it. Context helps immensely, for example. Think of what you can do that someone outside tech can't.
For example, take “X” to be “walking”. Do we have the technology that allows us to pretty much never have to walk? Sure. As far as I am aware, though, we do not generally favour a lifestyle of being bound to a mobility aid by choice, and in fact we have found that not walking when able in the long run creates substantial well-being issues for a human. (Now, we have found ways to alleviate some of those issues for those who aren’t able, but clearly it is not sufficient because we still walk.)
The problem is exacerbated immensely as the value of X approaches something as fundamental to one’s humanity as “thinking”.