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

Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#71

Post by FloorEgg »

Avshalom wrote: post #68
FloorEgg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your opinion on using an LLM to provide immediate feedback/grading at scale such that students have to muster their own answers but can check them quickly, compressing the feedback loop and allowing for more iterations? Students still have to muster their own answers, but the LLM is used to minimize the confusion or uncertainty about the quality of the answer and the time to wait for that clarity. My understa…

Because LLMS don't provide access to timely constructive feedback.

One interpretation of your comment is "LLM chat bots don't" or more specifically "ChatGPT doesn't", but I feel like this is a straw man and not intellectually honest answer to my question.

The real crux is not grounded in chat bots default behavior but the technology's capability: "Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?". The answer to this question is definitely yes. If you think the answer is no, then my guess is you haven't made an honest effort to try, or you just want the answer to be no and aren't interested in the truth.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#72

Post by simonw »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #42
simonw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught" At this point that's like saying Microsoft Excel isn't a skill that needs to be taught. None of this stuff is easy to use, or obvious. If you want to get meaningful results out of it and avoid the many, many traps then there is an absolute ton you need to learn. In the context of this conversation, the skill that needs to be learned is how to use AI to learn effective…

Well let's say that is true, and we do teach a class of kids how to use AI, how much of that will still be applicable by the time they enter the work force?

The bits about learning to communicate in clear and unambiguous way, having a skeptical ear and knowing when to double-check information that is being presented to them, and understanding how to use tools in a way that enhance their own learning should ideally last a lifetime.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#73

Post by ButlerianJihad »

As an educator, I found that the institution was often powerless to prevent or detect cheating, because many, many applicants are highly motivated by perverse incentives.

Many students attend because it's a "piece of paper" that's mandatory for their career aspirations. They'll never get hired without the college cred, and so they need to grab it by any means necessary. It's often not their own money they're spending: it's a federal grant, a loan, or mommy and daddy pining to give the same or better opportunity to the next generation. So family pressure to achieve is often immense, and overwhelming to a child being shoved through this system.

Other students, they already have a job and/or family, striving to get ahead and be upwardly mobile according to the American Dream, and so they simply don't have time for actual study or homework, but they paid tuition and purchased books, and these consumers need their product that they already invested in.

Perverse incentives abound in higher education, and without removing those or reforming the system, you'll never, ever stop or slow down the cheating, which is pervasive and rampant, believe you me.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#74

Post by laybak »

Aboutplants wrote: post #11

The older I get the more I realize “moderation in everything” is the key to success and happiness. Moderation in the sense of using or consuming something to only a certain degree. In this case, education, the answer is in the middle. It’s exploring and utilizing new tools while ensuring the base foundation of education. It’s really simple. Apply “moderation” to nearly any facet of your life and it’s probably the cor…

same. the older I get, the more I appreciate the "middle of the world" attitude in classical Chinese teachings. there's no single approach that's always / universally right. so it's wise to avoid going to the extreme in any direction

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#75

Post by FloorEgg »

operatingthetan wrote: post #63
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not who you asked, but here are what good generalizations are to me: 1) days contain more photons than nights 2) water boils at 100 degrees Celsius 3) eating excessive sugar will lead to obesity They seem like good generalizations because they are true most of the time from the perspective of the speaker and listener, even thought there may be some exceptions, they are materially more rare: 1) except in multi-sol…

> murder in moderation, meth in moderation, punching grandmas in the face in moderation I know these are your extreme examples but this is literally how society functions in each one. Meth in moderation = prescription stimulants for ADHD or narcolepsy. Murder in moderation = war, capital punishment. Punching grandmas in the face in moderation = arrests of shoplifters or intoxicated grandmas apparently require physica…

Okay, I'm coming around to your point that "everything in moderation" is a reasonable generalization.

My gut still says it's easily misinterpreted and can be used as justification to do something that shouldn't be. It has something to do with scope of applicability, but to be fair that's true of my other "good" examples as well (e.g. water boiling at different temperatures / pressures).

My instinctive "hold on a minute" was the assumption "everything in moderation" was not a good generalization when applied to everyone as individuals rather than more broadly/universally.

I suspect others that took issue had a similar misalignment in scope. (Fentanyl in moderation for a drug addict is not sustainable, fentanyl in moderation for a non-addict recovering from surgery, probably good)

I feel like I've stumbled into some philosophy tar pit - questioning the meaning of generalization, moderation, scope, good judgement and "everything"... so I'll just concede for now, despite feeling uneasy about it.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#76

Post by AngryData »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #54
bobsmooth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fentanyl is used in hospitals for pain management, so yes.

Moderation in recreational fentanyl then?

I dunno about everyine else but if someone else wants to then yes. If they can get clean product for proper dosing then it is already safer and better for everyone involved.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#77

Post by [deleted] »

nerdsniper wrote: post #45
marginalia_nu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation in fentanyl, too? Some habits are arguably just vices, that have few justifiable middle grounds.

Sure. Fentanyl should neither be completely banned from the nation nor easily obtained OTC by anyone. We should keep it available for things like epidurals. Moderation in fentanyl.

[deleted]

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#79

Post by Avshalom »

FloorEgg wrote: post #71
Avshalom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because LLMS don't provide access to timely constructive feedback.

One interpretation of your comment is "LLM chat bots don't" or more specifically "ChatGPT doesn't", but I feel like this is a straw man and not intellectually honest answer to my question. The real crux is not grounded in chat bots default behavior but the technology's capability: "Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?". The answer to this question is definitely yes…

>>"Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?"

"Can they" is not the same as "do they" and "specific educational contexts" is not relevant to "all educators"

Is it possible to get constructive feedback? sure, maybe. Is it possible to get a specific teacher's feedback? Not really. Is it possible to guarantee it will be productive feedback? No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it.

Is it likely that the reason "all educators" aren't tripping over themselves to have their students submit some number of drafts to an llm is because that's not actually a good idea? sure, probably.

Re: Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

#80

Post by FloorEgg »

Avshalom wrote: post #79
FloorEgg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interpretation of your comment is "LLM chat bots don't" or more specifically "ChatGPT doesn't", but I feel like this is a straw man and not intellectually honest answer to my question. The real crux is not grounded in chat bots default behavior but the technology's capability: "Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?". The answer to this question is definitely yes…

>>"Can LLMs provide access to timely constructive feedback in specific educational contexts?" "Can they" is not the same as "do they" and "specific educational contexts" is not relevant to "all educators" Is it possible to get constructive feedback? sure, maybe. Is it possible to get a specific teacher's feedback? Not really. Is it possible to guarantee it will be productive feedback? No, especially if the student ha…

> Is it possible to get constructive feedback? sure, maybe.

Not maybe, definitely.

> it possible to get a specific teacher's feedback? Not really.

Yes actually it definitely is.

> Is it possible to guarantee it will be productive feedback? No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it.

Yes it is possible to guarantee it will be productive, and far more consistently productive than what teachers can achieve.

There are going to be educational contexts where LLMs can't provide productive feedback (because LLMs aren't relevant to the learning objectives). There are also many contexts where they are exceptional at producing productive feedback. Especially in grade school and qualitative undergrad courses.

I am pretty sure what's happening here is you are conflating LLMs with ChatGPT and other chat interfaces. That's a bit like conflating an internal combustion engine with a tractor, and then basing your experience with tractors on an opinion that busses can't exist. Indicated by this thing you said: "No, especially if the student has to/gets to interact with it.". It seems like you haven't considered that LLMs can have any kind of guard rails or custom instructions applied to them, can be packaged or constrained in how the user interacts with them.

An interface can allow a student to submit a draft, get static personalized pedagogically-optimized feedback tailored to the teachers criteria, learning objectives and reference material, without any way for the student to get any other output.

I find it both funny and a little irritating how confident you are that this isn't possible, because I've seen it with my own eyes used in both graduate and undergrad contexts to great success.

In a way you have answered my original query, which I am grateful for: "Why aren't all educators tripping over themselves to use LLMs to maximize access to timely constructive feedback?"

You're indicating the answer is because most educators are confidently incorrect about LLM capabilities. Plausible I guess.

Post reply on HN