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

AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#121

Post by [deleted] »

mswphd wrote: post #112
aaaronic wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping to get them access to a specific tool like GitHub Copilot via GitHub Education, but when I looked, sign-ups were paused, so I went the tool-agnostic approach. Even during installation a lot of them were telling me how "chat" told them to fix their installation issues (but some were clearly using an alternative to ChatGPT, specifically). However, I see from other comments on this post that I may need to i…

worth clarifying "chat" is actually (linguistically) completely separate from a shorthand for ChatGPT. Livestreamers (e.g. on twitch/youtube) often talk to "chat", the people watching. Visually, they're just narrating actions etc to a 3rd party who is not present. This has leaked into (some) younger people's vocabulary. A particular example is saying "Chat is this real?" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chat-is-this-re…

[deleted]

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#122

Post by pastel8739 »

mswphd wrote: post #112
aaaronic wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping to get them access to a specific tool like GitHub Copilot via GitHub Education, but when I looked, sign-ups were paused, so I went the tool-agnostic approach. Even during installation a lot of them were telling me how "chat" told them to fix their installation issues (but some were clearly using an alternative to ChatGPT, specifically). However, I see from other comments on this post that I may need to i…

worth clarifying "chat" is actually (linguistically) completely separate from a shorthand for ChatGPT. Livestreamers (e.g. on twitch/youtube) often talk to "chat", the people watching. Visually, they're just narrating actions etc to a 3rd party who is not present. This has leaked into (some) younger people's vocabulary. A particular example is saying "Chat is this real?" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chat-is-this-re…

I don’t think this is right. Certainly one usage of “chat” is the livestream version, as you describe, but both Gen Z and Boomers use “chat” to refer to AI tools specifically

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#123

Post by nbbaier »

FistfulOfHaws wrote: post #119
bcherny wrote: post #83

For those using Claude Code, I recommend Learning mode to instruct Claude to walk you through implementing the solution yourself rather than doing it for you. It’s very helpful when diving into a new domain, and helps build lower level intuition. To enable it, run /config > output styles > Learning

Learning mode has been a huge help for me, it quickly became my favorite way to learn. I ended up created a “Coaching Mode” output style that took some of the learning concepts like stubbing todos for the users and added other intructions that better fit how I learn

This sounds neat - do you have this publicly available?

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#125

Post by noelsusman »

mswphd wrote: post #112
aaaronic wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping to get them access to a specific tool like GitHub Copilot via GitHub Education, but when I looked, sign-ups were paused, so I went the tool-agnostic approach. Even during installation a lot of them were telling me how "chat" told them to fix their installation issues (but some were clearly using an alternative to ChatGPT, specifically). However, I see from other comments on this post that I may need to i…

worth clarifying "chat" is actually (linguistically) completely separate from a shorthand for ChatGPT. Livestreamers (e.g. on twitch/youtube) often talk to "chat", the people watching. Visually, they're just narrating actions etc to a 3rd party who is not present. This has leaked into (some) younger people's vocabulary. A particular example is saying "Chat is this real?" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chat-is-this-re…

Not entirely sure what your point is, but if you're implying that kids don't use "chat" to refer to any LLM (usually ChatGPT) then that's very wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with the usage of "chat" you described.

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#126

Post by johnfn »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #74
JohnMakin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're only cheating themselves in a world that increasingly cares about knowledge (market trend of seniors being preferable hires to fresh out of school juniors) and not the piece of paper that "proved" you had such knowledge.

I agree with you that they are cheating themselves. Unfortunately, a bunch of 18-22 year olds also don't tend to have the maturity to realize that fact. I imagine that the university is trying to nudge them to do the courses in a way that helps themselves because they know otherwise the students won't be wise enough to do that.

These students are making a tradeoff between an abstract notion of "cheating themselves" and a very concrete notion of "having a worse GPA". The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects.

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#127

Post by xydac »

ezfe wrote: post #45
xydac wrote: post #39

This is a very good baseline for future courses to build on, there would always be a group that wants to jailbreak this and thats okay, but have baseline agent support learning is needed in this ai first world.

Jailbreaking isn’t even needed - you can just modify the file

I was probably thinking of a future where future devices from education institutions would have these preloaded with a non modifiable version of agents guardrails tuned for learning...

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#128

Post by sam29681749 »

johnfn wrote: post #126
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that they are cheating themselves. Unfortunately, a bunch of 18-22 year olds also don't tend to have the maturity to realize that fact. I imagine that the university is trying to nudge them to do the courses in a way that helps themselves because they know otherwise the students won't be wise enough to do that.

These students are making a tradeoff between an abstract notion of "cheating themselves" and a very concrete notion of "having a worse GPA". The second one translates obviously and directly to job prospects.

they should learn as much as they can + cheat for optimal results

Re: AI Agent Guidelines for CS336 at Stanford

#130

Post by MengerSponge »

asdff wrote: post #76
MengerSponge wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insidious thing here is that students can think they're studying and practicing by chatting with an AI "tutor", which shifts them into a passive observation role that's no better than watching YouTube videos. It turns out that it's much less memorable if you're too "clear and helpful", so nothing helpful sticks for students. A good teacher (tutor, educator, pick a word) challenges students and makes them the righ…

These resources often suck for the college major level anyhow. Youtube and such is all dumbed down usually. Or if it isn't dumbed down, you risk studying beyond the scope of the lecture. Every class I took, the professor would say something like "anything in lecture could end up on the exam." And indeed, every exam was comprised of something that came from the slides, and nothing that didn't come from the slides. Eve…

I'm a college (physics) professor, and last semester specifically had a huge shift in student behavior. In introductory courses, students basically stopped coming to help sessions.

I give a substantial amount of extra credit for attending regular help sessions which yielded about 30% help session conversion in past semesters. This term it dropped below 5%, and those few who came were the ones who were high B/ low A students. The solid A students don't come because they don't need to. The low B and lower students didn't come because they thought they didn't need to? It's unclear, but clearly something changed.

Students performing in the mid-B and up range weren't affected, but below that? The bottom dropped out. Students who should have earned B's earned C's. Students who could have earned C's... didn't.

Post reply on HN