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

Universities would prefer no AI

hollisrobbinsanecdotal.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#31

Post by summarybot »

alephnerd wrote: post #14
summarybot wrote: post #8

>the two most reliable places to get an answer are the physical library and AI. Uh in what universe? Obviously physical books are helpful but are not most of the new ones being written with the assistance of an LLM?

Depending on the type of question being asked and the complexity, human intervention is still needed because LLMs still face an information retrieval problems.

Definitely the case that LLMs still face a "not actually rational nor conscious" problem.

Einstein once said physics is like looking at the outer movement of a watch and attempting to understand its internal mechanisms.

LLMs watch the outer movement of our keyboards in an attempt to comprehend our varieties of intelligence (intuitive, rational, symbolic, logical, ...)

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#32

Post by summarybot »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #11
summarybot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more, and yet, attendance itself is a commerical product.

The commercial product is the paper that says "University of Whatever says you learned Whatever". If the university loses credibility (by producing a bunch of people who cannot function without a chatbot) then the product is no longer valuable.

This assumes every degree is valuable in the marketplace, which is simply not the case. The product is luxury attendance, the degree is secondary to that.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#33

Post by d_silin »

summarybot wrote: post #27
d_silin wrote: post #7

And for the good reason. I have yet to see 1 (one) reason how giving infinite cheat machine to students is of any benefit to them. The secret to mastery remained unchanged for a thousand years: books, lectures and homework. All of this can be done with pen and paper level of technology.

The definition of mastery in your comment sounds like nonreliance on technology to accomplish [something]. Technologyless Mastery was a natural result from: reliance and overreliance on technology being stuttery, unpredictable, inadventitious and costly. In other words, it made more sense to 'frontload' hardthought and pondering so one was prepared [for whatever may come]. People also thought aqueducts were the best…

I can teach symbolic math effectively using clay tablet and reed pen today.

Numerical methods, however, would require at least minimal computing hardware.

I think there should be a guiding principle of using the least amount of tech in teaching any subject, just like principle of least privilege in cybersecurity.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#34

Post by bunderbunder »

VCFundedGenYer wrote: post #15

It is causing far more pain than benefit in the majority of institutions. Particularly the cheating. Many students are flagrantly using it + the detection tools either aren't configured to check for it, or, if they do have something like TurnItIn, it doesn't work, and flags legitimately created content sans AI.

I think what we are seeing with all these AI detection tools is a whole lot of shooting the messenger. Technology made the problem of lazy students impossible to ignore, but the solution might be decidedly low-tech: have students spend some time talking about their work with the teacher, face to face.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#35

Post by _aavaa_ »

bunderbunder wrote: post #25
_aavaa_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A home can also be built of mud bricks and heated by dung. The issue you’re describing is a mindset/cultural one, not a technological one. The same cheating machine can be used as a tutor. Those same cheating students understand, that at the gym, they themselves have to lift the weights to get strong, but that mindset doesn’t carry over to their classes.

To go with the gym analogy, thus far it would seem that using AI to help study seems to be working out about as well as the Enhanced Games did. Before we get ahead of ourselves and hype up AI as a tool for making people smarter, let’s first demonstrate that AI really does help them learn better. Otherwise we risk wasting a lot of time and money on silicon snake oil.

I don’t think the comparison is fair, consider the incentives for the Enhanced Games. Once an athletic declared their taking banned substances, they are barred from every other competition, so it’s no surprise that “clean” athletes dominate.

As for proof, I think it’s self evident for anyone who has tried to us it in that way.

If you’re studying math ask it to generate more questions for you to try. If you don’t understand a concept, have it use the Socratic method on you. Learning a language, talk back and forth with it over voice. Writing an essay, have it mark and proofread it and provide feedback based on known good criteria.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#36

Post by zurfer »

d_silin wrote: post #7

And for the good reason. I have yet to see 1 (one) reason how giving infinite cheat machine to students is of any benefit to them. The secret to mastery remained unchanged for a thousand years: books, lectures and homework. All of this can be done with pen and paper level of technology.

Zooming out you see that books, pen and paper are all technology. Like even school and language is technology.

Given that AI exist maybe we can roll back some of the school/university and just let people do the work and learn while doing?

Yes not for a 7yo but with 18 you could just work and learn what is required or what you find exciting.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#37

Post by black_knight »

Lots of people talk about cheating here. That is not the framing I put in my mind. Or rather, if the students are cheating anyone it's themselves.

LLMs exist and are extremely useful in academia. I am currently riding a productivity wave, where I can spit out formalised proofs – not quite at the pace at which I can think of the theorems to prove, but almost. The thing braking my progress is that I have to build all the existing theory too, not just my own new stuff.

But for students, who do not yet know anything, it is a danger. From observing my students, it seems to take a certain amount of willpower to do the exercises without letting ChatGPT give them (or "explain them") the answer. And reading an explanation is not the same thing as working it out yourself. You just don't learn doing it, by not doing it!

Some students have this will power, some students don't. And it is also situational. Some students have stuff going (work or other factors) which makes it really hard too.

Yes, they can of course keep asking ChatGPT later in life, but they will not have the fundamental understanding which is required to even use LLMs for the advanced stuff. ChatGPT cannot explain you advanced concepts if you don't understand the fundamentals!

So, to test the students' understanding, we are back to having on-site exams, with the old-school supervision. And more students will fail, because there is now a way to solve exercises without learning.

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#38

Post by [deleted] »

d_silin wrote: post #20
_aavaa_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A home can also be built of mud bricks and heated by dung. The issue you’re describing is a mindset/cultural one, not a technological one. The same cheating machine can be used as a tutor. Those same cheating students understand, that at the gym, they themselves have to lift the weights to get strong, but that mindset doesn’t carry over to their classes.

LLMs are like anabolic steroids for the brain. Surely you can do more with them, but you are better without them. Access to them should be restricted, especially for untrained minds.

[deleted]

Re: Universities would prefer no AI

#40

Post by thegreenswede »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #24
d_silin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are like anabolic steroids for the brain. Surely you can do more with them, but you are better without them. Access to them should be restricted, especially for untrained minds.

That’s a bad analogy, you still have to put all the effort yourself at the gym while on steroids. Perhaps LLMs are a forklift.

Not true actually
Post reply on HN