61–70 of 601 posts
I loved asking questions as a kid. To the point of annoying adults. I would have loved to sit and ask these AI questions about all kinds of interests when I was young.
> 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…
I don't think asking "what's wrong with my code" hurts the learning process. In fact, I would argue it helps it. I don't think you learn when you have reached your frustration point and you just want the dang assignment completed. But before reaching that point, if you had a tutor or assistant that you could ask, "hey, I'm just not seeing my mistake, do you have ideas" goes a long way to foster learning. ChatGPT, use…
It's sort of the mental analog of weight training. The only way to get better at weightlifting is to actually lift weight.
> 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…
So if you use them at that level you may learn the concepts at hand, but you won't learn _how to struggle_ to come up with novel answers. Then later in life when you actually hit problem domains that the LLM wasn't trained in, you'll not have learned the thinking patterns needed to persist and solve those problems.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? It's mixed: - You lower the bar for entry for a certain class of roles, making labor cheaper and problems easier to solve at that level. - For more senior roles that are intrinsically solving problems without answers written in a book or a blog post somewhere, you need to be selective about how you evaluate the people who are ready to take on that role.
It's like taking the college weed out classes and shifting those to people in the middle of their career.
Individuals who can't make the cut will find themselves stagnating in their roles (but it'll also be easier for them to switch fields). Those who can meet the bar might struggle but can do well.
Business will also have to come up with better ways to evaluate candidates. A resume that says "Graduated with a degree in X" will provide less of a signal than it did in the past
> 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…
But when the answer flows out of thin air right in front of you with AI, you get the "oh duh" or "that makes sense" moments and not the "a-ha" moment that ultimately sticks with you.
Now does everything need an "a-ha" moment? No.
However, I think core concepts and fundamentals need those "a-ha" moments to build a solid and in-depth foundation of understanding to build upon.
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…
I don't think memorizing poetry fits your picture. Nobody ever memorized poetry so that they could answer questions about it.
The other part I imagine was largely entertainment, social and memory is a good skill to build.
> 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…
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…
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…
My take: While AI tools can help with learning, the vast majority of students use it to avoid learning
> 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…
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…
What I don't like are all the hidden variables in these systems. Even GPS, for example, is making some assumptions about what kind of roads you want to take and how to weigh different paths. LLMs are worse in this regard because the creators encode a set of moral and stylistic assumptions/dictates into the model and everybody who uses it is nudged into that paradigm. This is destructive to any kind of original thought, especially in an environment where there are only a handful of large companies providing the models everyone uses.
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…
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…
Yes, but that horse has long ago left the barn.
I don't know how to grow crops, build a house, tend livestock, make clothes, weld metal, build a car, build a toaster, design a transistor, make an ASIC, or write an OS. I do know how to write a web site. But if I cede that skill to an automated process, then that is the feather that will break the camel's back?
The history of civilization is the history of specialization. No one can re-build all the tools they rely on from scratch. We either let other people specialize, or we let machines specialize. LLMs are one more step in the latter.
The Luddites were right: the machinery in cotton mills was a direct threat to their livelihood, just as LLMs are now to us. But society marches on, textile work has been largely outsourced to machines, and the descendants of the Luddites are doctors and lawyers (and coders). 50 years from new the career of a "coder" will evoke the same historical quaintness as does "switchboard operator" or "wainwright."