421–430 of 601 posts
They will likely sell some version of this "Clio" to managers, to make it easier for them to accept this very intimate insight into the businesses they manage.
> A common question is: “how much are students using AI to cheat?” That’s hard to answer, especially as we don’t know the specific educational context where each of Claude’s responses is being used. I built a popular product that helps teachers with this problem. Yes, it's "hard to answer", but let's be honest... it's a very very widespread problem. I've talked to hundreds of teachers about this and it's a ubiquitous…
> it's literally "let me paste the assignment into ChatGPT and see what it spits out, change a few words and submit that". My wife is an accounting professor. For many years her battle was with students using Chegg and the like. They would submit roughly correct answers but because she would rotate the underlying numbers they would always be wrong in a provably cheating way. This made up 5-8% of her students. Now she…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone already said, parents used to be concerned that kids wouldn't be able to solve maths problems without a calculator, and it's the same problem, but there's a difference between solving problems _with_ LLMs, and having LLMs solve it _for you_. I don't see the former as that much of a problem.
Well the extent is much broader from a calculator vs an LLM. Why should I hire you if an agent can do it ? LLM is every job is a calculator and can be replaced. Spotify CEO stated on X that before asking for more headcount they have to justify not being able to do the job with an agent. So all the students who let the LLM do their assignment and learn basically nothing, what’s their value for a company to be hired ?…
My take: While AI tools can help with learning, the vast majority of students use it to avoid learning
Most of us here took their education before AI. Students trying to avoid having to do work is a constant and as old as the notion of schools is. Changing/improving the tools just means teachers have to escalate the counter measures. For example by raising the ambition level in terms of quality and amount of work expected. And teachers should use AIs too. Evaluating papers is not that hard for an LLM. "Your a teacher.…
what's the point of the teacher then? Courses could entirely be taught via LLM in this case!
A student's willingness to learn is orthogonal to the availability of cheating devices. If a student is willing, they will know when to leverage the LLM for tutoring, and when to practise without it.
A student who's unwilling cannot be stopped from cheating via LLM now-a-days. Is it worth expending resources to try prevent it? The only reason i can think of is to ensure the validity of school certifications, which is growing increasingly worthless anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When modern search became more available, a lot of people said there's no point of rote memorization as you can just do a Google search. That's more or less accepted today. Whenever we have a new technology there's a response "why do I need to learn X if I can always do Y", and more or less, it has proven true, although not immediately. For instance, I'm not too concerned about my child's ability to write very legibl…
> For instance, I'm not too concerned about my child's ability to write very legibly (most writing is done on computers), spell very well (spell check keeps us professional), reading a map to get around (GPS), etc That sounds like setting-up your child for failure, to put it bluntly. How do you want to express a thought clearly if you already fail at the stage of thinking about words clearly? You start with a fuzzy u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irreducible answer to "why should I" is that it makes you ever-more-increasingly reliant on a teetering tower of fragile and interdependent supply chains furnished by for-profit companies who are all too eager to rake you over the coals to fulfill basic cognitive functions. Like, Socrates may have been against writing because he thought it made your memory weak, but at least I, an individual, am perfectly capable…
Why do people keep parroting this reduction of Socrates' thoughts... I don't think it was just as simple as he thought writing was bad. And we already know that writing isn't everything, anyone who as done any study of a craft can tell you that reading and writing don't teach you the feel of the art form, but can also nonetheless aid in the study. It's not black and white, even though people like to make it out to be…
My take: While AI tools can help with learning, the vast majority of students use it to avoid learning
This has been observation about the internet. Growing up in a small town without access to advanced classes, having access to Wikipedia felt like the greatest equalizer in the world. 20 years post internet, seeing the most common outcome be that people learn less as a result of unlimited access to information would be depressing if it did not result in my own personal gain.
when wikipedia was initially made, many schools/teachers explicitly denied wikipedia as a source for citing in essays. And obviously, plenty of kids just plagerized wikipedia articles for their essay topics (and was easily discovered at the time).
With the advent of LLM, this sort of pseudo-learning is going to be more and more common. The unsupervised tests (like online tests, or take home assignments) cannot prevent cheating. The end result is that students would pass, but without _actually_ learning the material at all.
I personally think that perhaps the issue is not with the students, but with the student's requirement for certification post-school. Those who are genuinely interested would be able to leverage LLM to the maximum for their benefit, not just to cheat a test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should I hire you if an agent can do it ? You as the employer are liable, a human has real reasoning abilities and real fears about messing up, the likely hood of them doing something absurd like telling a customer that a product is 70% off and them not losing their job is effectively nil. What are you going to do with the LLM, fire it? Data scientist and people deeply familiar with LLMs to the point that they…
I fully agree with you about liability. I was advocating for the other point of view. Some people argue that it doesn’t matter if there is mistakes (it depends which actually) and with time it will cost nothing. I argue that if we give up learning and let LLM do the assignments then what is the extent of my knowledge and value to be hired in the first place ? We hired a developper and he did everything with chatGPT,…
However I really don't need to implement some weird algorithms myself every time (ideally I am using a well tested Library) but the point is that you learn to be able to but also to be able to modify or compose the algorithm in ways the LLM couldn't easily do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also how it's done in almost all French engineering schools. You get open book tests with a small amount of relatively difficult questions and you have 3-4 hours to complete. In some of the CS tests, coding by hand sucks a bit but to be honest, they're ok with pseudo code as long as you show you understand the concepts.
The European mind cannot comprehend take-home exams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder to what extent this is students who would have stuck it out now taking the easy way and to what extent it’s students who would have just failed now trying to stick it out.
This is an extremely important question, and you’ve phrased it nicely. We’re either handicapping our brightest, or boosting our dumbest. One part is concerning, the other encouraging .