Why are you borrowing like $3,000 a credit hour to use ChatGPT? Take some fucking humanities courses so you don’t grow up to be like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk challenging each other to an MMA match. This might be your last chance in life to be surrounded by experts and hot people having discussions.
Being able to use software everyone uses isn’t a marketable skill. Learn some shit. You’re an adult now.
“This might be your last chance in life to be surrounded by experts and hot people having discussions.”
The things that really matter.
Those who don’t desire to think will attend university to not think. Those who desire to think will put off studying to discuss ideas with friends, but like they’ll keep doing that shit for life.
I caught my middle schooler googling her math homework problems. I can hardly blame her, I just completed a work training on Measles the same way. I told her I understand the urge, but you have to put in the work in order to earn taking the easy way out because otherwise you won’t know when the machines are lying to you. So anyway yeah we’re fucked.
Anarchists: “You can’t own ideas, man!”
Capitalists: “Well, I can, because I am not some penniless hippy!”
I definitely have a hangup on students I teach saying something along the lines of “I don’t know how to get started on this, I asked GPT and…”. To be clear: We’re talking about higher-level university courses here, where GPT is, from my experience, unreliable at best and useless or misleading at worst. It makes me want to yell “What do you think?!?” I’ve been teaching at a University for some years, and there’s a huge shift in the past couple years regarding how willing students are to smack their head repeatedly against a problem until they figure it out. It seems like their first instinct when they don’t know something is to ask an LLM, and if that doesn’t work, to give up.
I honestly want shake a physical book at them (and sometimes do), and try to help them understand that actually looking up what they need in a reliable resource is an option. (Note: I’m not in the US, you get second hand course books for like 40 USD here that are absolutely great, to the point that I have a bunch myself that I use to look stuff up in my research).
Of course, the above doesn’t apply to all students, but there’s definitely been a major shift in the past couple years.
Do we have to throw mud at “cheating” students? I’ve been hearing similar stuff about K-12 for a while with regards to looking up answers on the internet, but if the coursework is rote enough that an LLM can do it for you, then A. As a student taking gen-eds that have no obvious correlation to your degree, why wouldn’t you use it? And B. It might just be past time to change the curriculum
How do you teach a kid to write in this day and age? Do we still want people to express themselves in writing? Or are we cool with them using AI slop to do it?
I may disagree with you that the ability to write alone is where the problem is. In my view, LLMs are further exposing that our education system is doing a very poor job of teaching kids to think critically. It seems to me that this discussion tends to be targeted at A) Kids who already don’t want to be at school, and B) Kids who are taking classes simply to fulfill a requirement by their district— and both are using LLMs as a way to pass a class that they either don’t care about or don’t have the energy to pass without it.
What irked me about this headline is labeling them as “cheaters,” and I got push-back for challenging that. I ask again: if public education is not engaging you as a student, what is your incentive not to use AI to write your paper? Why are we requiring kids to learn how to write annotated bibliographies when they already know that they aren’t interested in pursuing research? A lot of the stuff we’re still teaching kids doesn’t make any sense.
I believe a solution cuts both ways:
A) Find something that makes them want to think critically. Project-based learning still appears to be one of the best catalysts for making this happen, but we should be targeting it towards real-world industries, and we should be doing it more quickly. As a personal example: I didn’t need to take 4 months of biology in high school to know that I didn’t want to do it for a living. I participated in FIRST Robotics for 4 years, and that program alone gave me a better chance than any in the classroom to think critically, exercise leadership skills, and learn soft and hard skills on my way to my chosen career path. I’ve watched the program turn lights on in kids’ heads as they finally understand what they want to do for a living. It gave them purpose and something worth learning for; isn’t that what this is all about anyway?
B) LLMs (just like calculators, the internet, and other mainstream technologies that have emerged in recent memory) are not going anywhere. I hate all the corporate bullshit surrounding AI just as much as the next user on here, but LLMs still add significant value to select professions. We should be teaching all kids how to use LLMs as an extension of their brain rather than as a replacement for it, and especially rather than universally demonizing it.
I have been tutoring high school students as a volunteer for nearly a decade. Most of these in early high school (9-10) can’t even write a simple paragraph. How are they going to express critical thinking when they can’t even write very simple things?
I mean we’re talking about kids who are functionally illiterate. The system has failed to teach them this basic skill. Critical thinking about complex and nuanced topics is way beyond that! And the problem is they’re not going to learn the basic skills if they use AI to prevent themselves from doing any work.
By analogy, imagine trying to train people to be Olympians. Before they can perform in their sport they need to train their bodies to build muscle and endurance. Yet they insist on bringing a forklift to the gym because they think what it really want them to do is move weights around, not lift them.
I mean we’re talking about kids who are functionally illiterate. The system has failed to teach them this basic skill. Critical thinking about complex and nuanced topics is way beyond that!
I agree with you there, and I don’t think we’re really all that far off from each other. Writing has both synthetic (the critical thinking to which I referred) and syntactical (what I believe you’re getting at) components to it, and kids have been missing out on the synthetic component for quite a while now and are now beginning to miss more of the syntactical part as a result of AI.
Where I disagree with you is:
And the problem is they’re not going to learn the basic skills if they use AI to prevent themselves from doing any work.
Kids not doing their work didn’t start with AI. LLMs haven’t even been mainstream or otherwise publicly available for three years yet. A lot of these kids were never going to complete coursework in good faith because the curriculum is failing to engage them. Either that, or there are influences in their lives that make it altogether impossible, such as poverty or neurodivergence. In my other comment I was speaking mainly to career readiness, but the principle of meeting students where their circumstances and interests lie applies throughout their time in K-12.
A trend I’ve noticed in this issue is demonizing students (hence why I keep bringing it up). These kids had nothing to do with their parents putting iPads in front of them instead of reading to them when they were little, or having to take classes that were designed before their parents were born, or so many other observations about the structure of education that make it archaic and broken (perhaps by design, but that’s out-of-scope here). Every stakeholder around this issue should be discussing with each other the ways that school can better serve students; instead, we’ve hastily created a stigma that using AI to complete assignments that you don’t understand, don’t have time for, or simply couldn’t care less about makes you a cheater.
It is truly a wicked problem, and I believe the way that our leaders haven’t adapted education is primarily to blame. I haven’t even mentioned social media, and I think that government’s inability to regulate it has its share to blame for kids struggling in school. But as problematic as AI is, it is not the reason why this is happening, and we may have to agree to disagree on that point.
Hey I’m not blaming students for any of this. I’ve been in the trenches with them this whole time. I’ve witnessed first hand the power of Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and mobile games. It robs them of their ability to focus. Then when they’ve procrastinated long enough they get exasperated from stress and fire up ChatGPT for a way out.
I’ve tried to help a teacher who can’t even get her own son to study. No avail.
I can’t really blame our political leaders for this. They don’t know what they’re doing either. They had no more ability to anticipate the effects of all this stuff than the rest of us.
The only ones who truly anticipated these issues are the folks working in social media. They saw what was happening first hand, through their metrics. They began unplugging their families from technology before anyone else.
I also don’t blame our teachers nor the folks in charge of setting curriculum (also teachers for the most part). I have friends who have worked in education research. They simply do not have the resources to compete with social media psychology researchers (working for big tech) who run A/B tests around the clock on millions of people in order to learn to maximize engagement. What hope does a teacher have when facing a class of 30+ bored, tired, social-addicted, and disillusioned teenagers? Very little.
I think we’re not too far from a huge social media and technology backlash. But before that we’re going to see a lost generation of squandered human capital.
How long before Respondus introduces an education equivalent of BattlEye or other kernel-level anticheats as a result of stuff like this?
And I don’t mean the Lockdown browser, I mean something beyond that, so as to block local AI Implementations in addition to web-based ones.
Also, I’m pretty sure there’s still plenty of fields that are more hands-on and either really hard or impossible to AI-cheat your way through. For example, if you’re going for carpentry at the local vo-tech, good luck AI-cheating your way through that when that’s a very hands-on subject by its nature.
Or, ya’know, they could just have students take tests on paper in a lecture hall.
That’s what we used to do, 15 years ago though
Or even actually show what they learned in a practical sense. In a vo-tech, for example, have the students fix up a car or get a small LAN set up, or even in the case of art school, have the class do a mural outside as their end-of-instruction project (which sounds like a really fun end-of-instruction project, btw), with admin approval, of course.
Academia isn’t really that practical
Vo-techs at least kinda have to be based on the types of things they tend to teach, you can’t really teach things like masonry out of a book, for example, that’s one subject where you actually need to go in and get your hands dirty as it were, and actually do the thing being taught, to learn it, or really anything else having to do with building a house.
I could very much argue that this also applies to art school as well, but there’s also a lot of theory and history and such that very much needs a lot of reading to pick up, although things like color theory are best picked up by actually mixing different paint colors together, as well as the practical side of things in terms of actually doing a painting or drawing or sculpture or whatever.
You don’t really go to college for masonry though
Doesn’t even need to be paper. Have locked-down, internet-disconnected computers in the exam hall bas glorified typewriters.
Exactly, that’s how it works in my country. I think the PCs are connected to a local server that then matches the results to your id and email.
Why not a middle ground? Have them only access a local network version of Wikipedia + a verified library to search
Back when I was in grade school in the mid 1990’s, we were one of the first families to have a computer. We weren’t allowed to ANY schoolwork on it. If you had to write a paper, it had to be written by hand. Which, as someone who could type much faster and used bigger words, was REALLY fucking annoying.
But yeah, I imagine we need to go back to dumb, disconnected computers in exam halls to keep things above board. It’s depressing to see how lazy this tech makes students.
Because nobody ever cheated on a paper exam before.
perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that
I would argue that in person exams with no resources to do research goes against how the world works for most white collar workers.
Few are unable to research on the internet to verify information, or at least look at say a man page for coding or look up past stuff on stackoverflow, if they are working through a problem.
Standardized testing is just not as useful as-is. I do great at it and can typically pass exams without really studying the material, but others are not so lucky.
I’ve met people who can flunk exams but talk about the problems, go into how they would fix it, and work through a problem to implementation and testing in the real world.
Oh, and LLMs are the new typewriter, for better or worse. It’s unlikely we are going to have a future where they are not readily available. We already have models that run locally and do not transmit data anywhere, and AI customized to your own data that is not shared is already a service provided by Microsoft.
Education needs to evolve with technology. It’s always been 5-10 years behind the curve.
Maybe we should be using LLMs to proctor tests and generate interactive testing. Grading can be verified by a professor reading a transcript to verify hallucinations didn’t occur or influence the results. We can even have LLMs monitor the working process of people to help determine what are the most efficient ways to work custom tailored to individuals. This is just one idea of many potential options.
Those are all very nice ideas, and we’ll see if they pan out in the future. But universities need ways to stop (or, fine, reduce) cheating that can be implemented right now. A class in English literature and composition should test how well you can read and interpret the source material to then express something about it in your own words in a coherent way. This is a useful life skill to have, and students should learn to do it without AI assistance. Giving them a pen and paper and a quiet room to work in has been a good enough method of assessment for at least the last 50 years which is reasonably cost effective.
Yes, there are problems with standardized testing. Yes, you can cheat on a paper test. But the way to improve the evaluation process is to first establish a stable baseline, and then try new things that might work better to see if they actually work better. Not to throw out everything we knew before and haphazardly try every random idea that pops into someone’s head in a panic.
Lol, english classes have always been the biggest joke of college for me. All you do is write an outline, pull some bullshit quotes to back up your argument from the source to satisfy MLA, and write enough to satisfy the word requirement. It’s all bullshit. it’s all opinion. Easy A for me, except when i’m forced to write by hand.
If you really want to make people learn how to write professionally without computer assistance like spellcheck or LLMs, give them a fucking typewriter. It’s how I learned to type as a kid in the 90s. At least the typing skill is transferable and you get a great understanding of why applications like Word function the way they function.
Easy A for me, except when i’m forced to write by hand.
Okay - I’m sorry your nerd muscles were so weak you couldn’t even hold a pencil.
But regardless of your personal shortcomings, these classes exist because they teach useful things, and if we want to tell others who did and did not learn those useful things in this class, we need a way to test that knowledge.
Now, it seems like your point of view is that all the knowledge and experience of a university education is useless anyway. This is a point of view I have some sympathy towards, but on the whole I don’t think it is right. However, if you do, then why the fuck arent you filthy rich yet? If you know so well what people need to know to be successful and well educated for the next 30 years, and you think you know how they should learn, and you know how you can evaluate their abilities after receiving an education - then why aren’t you doing that and raking in the billions of dollars that go into university education right now?
So go do that. Tell me when you make your first million. But until then, I’m gonna assume that the foundational western liberal education has value, seeing as it has persisted for quite a while. LLMs on the other hand, may very well turn out to be a fad of the summer.
tools like that were going big in the pandemic for online exams. Basically rootkits that fully compromise your machine
I mean college is cheating them out of 200k plus of money so do you blame them?
Only in the USA
Yes, wholeheartedly. They’re not cheating the school—they’re cheating themselves. If you’re paying 200k+ for an education, for what earthly reason would you then skip the actual education?
Please go on tell me again how college actually translates to working a real job. What’s the point of knowing anything you can look it up just as fast. Also as fast as tech changes it’s not worth it to commiting time and energy beyond the basic understanding of things.
@al_Kaholic @platypode not my usual content, but isn’t college about teaching a way for thinking and critical analysis rather than learning by rote? Obviously the bar is raised nowadays, not only do you have to be a critical thinker, you need to be smarter at analysis and insight than AI. ‘Knowing things’ is for school, it is not advanced education
That’s always been my issue. I worked full time and went to school full time when I was in college and still had to take out some loans. I did have some scholarship money that covered about half of it, but they only covered four years. My degree path didn’t have any free electives meaning in every assignment, test, and class I only had a single shot. Failing would likely mean having to retake a class and push graduating out to a year which would have doubled the amount of debt I came out with. All just to get a piece of paper that would allow me to do the job that I knew I would be good at and enjoy.
The entire course of my life was at the mercy of some bad teachers and worse bureaucracy. I get that my profession shouldn’t just hire people without any kind of training and hope for the best, and there were things I learned that had value, but the stakes and imbalance of power is so high I can’t really be mad at some one “cheating” when they themselves are getting royally fucked.
If you’re only doing university for a piece of paper, you done gone screwed up.
University is to learn how academia works so that you can continue your development independently afterwards. You become capable of researching topics, reading the papers and solving a problem you’ve never faced before.
Nobody ever tells you this, but your first degree is more about developing you than developing your knowledge. If you just askGPT the whole time you’re cheating yourself.
That’s great, but if they want to make that the goal then they should structure it in a way that is more conducive to that goal. When failure without dire consequences isn’t an option, then they have fucked up.
Academia is a universe unlike anything else in the world. Academics will not prepare you for a job in the real world; it will prepare you to climb the academic ladder
It’s almost as if college isn’t about bettering yourself but paying a racket so you can check off a mandatory box on your resume for the pleasure of your corporate liege-lords…
Correct.
It’s also why everyone needs a linkedin and to wear a suit. We have an environment where you’re not an attractive hire unless you can show you’ve ‘paid into the system.’
It’s fucked, and that’s by design. We need to start respecting people who are fighting back instead of shaming them.
Not to sound like a starry eyed idealist, but it’s both.
It sucks that it’s just a weird mandatory box, but if you don’t cheat your way through college you should better yourself in lots of ways. Learning how to independently organize tasks and time and research and challenging your preconceptions and struggling to really grasp complex ideas.
It should be all those things.
Computer science is going to be q commodity job. Prediction of three tiers:
- Tier 1: No education requirement. I write code and build things. Large percentage of developers.
- Tier 3: Science based, high education working on algorithms, physics, and other elements requiring an understanding of matters in deeper education
- Tier 2: Right in between 1 and 3, may require formal education, but definitely experience. Will understand applications of high science, and can both program well and manage teams. Will replace current nontechnical middle management, because who needs that when the market is flooded
We’ve been headed this way for years, AI is just speeding it up.
Universities are being disrupted. Everyone is going to have to rethink their role is society with AI, Universities included.
The best part about AI is people are shooting themselves in the foot using it at school, where you’re supposed to learn things, and it will make the rest of us not nearly as dependent on a LLM rise to the top. I truly do not understanding cheating in college. If you’re not learning, what’s the fucking point? How well are you going to perform without access to that LLM? Good grades are not the point of college.
Imagine borrowing $200k for an education, and then doing as little work as you can to actually learn the things you’re paying to know
Imagine lacking the curiosity to want to take this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn interesting new things with all the resources at your fingertips. I think the root of the problem is that capitalist society sends students the message that learning is valuable only as a means to make more money. If that’s your view then it makes sense to skip the difficult stuff and just pay for the piece of paper that gives you access to better-paying jobs. Capitalism absolutely doesn’t value having a wiser and more knowledgeable populace, and students pick up on this.
I was one of the people who went to college to learn things, but the more I learn, the more I’m saddened by all the people I went to school with who studied things they didn’t enjoy, didn’t particularly care to get better at, all because they saw it as a way to make money. In optimizing for money, they miss out on learning and fulfillment.
This wasn’t that long ago, but I can only imagine how much heavy GenAI use could intensify that effect
I was one of those people too and the academic environment was honestly depressing. Almost none of the professors actually cared about the topics they taught, only about the ones that were their research subjects, on the topics they taught many were stuck at the state the introductory topics were at when they first graduated themselves (in IT where everything changes much more quickly than that). Many university wide decisions were nonsensical (e.g. teach memory management in OS classes in Java because Java was the language they standardized on for everything due to industry pressure). For Bachelor topics they only wanted to accept topics where you could tell you would basically spend months to write something that would end up in the round filing cabinet once it had served its grading purpose. Questions in larger classes were highly discouraged, even pointing out mistakes in the lecture materials (obvious indisputable ones that shouldn’t hurt anyone’s ego like some typo in the order of digits) got responses that discouraged doing that again.
Most people can’t afford to go to Universities for the purpose of research. Most people go to Universities for a specific college (every university is requured to have multiple colleges to be accedited) to learn information that is already known. Which is where I think we have it set up wrong. It shouldn’t cost large sums of money for a person to learn what is already known, the information should be made available for free. The tests universal and unattached to a University name. Were you able to pass the test showing proficiency in A, B and C. Yes or no, that is what we need to know you are proficient in for this job. It doesn’t matter if you went to Alabama, Yale, Community college, online seminars, w.e. Researching knowledge we do not currently possess is what I think the University setup should be pushed back towards.
I went to college to get the degree so I could check that box on job applications, I already knew most of the material.
Are you paying to know those things? I think you’re paying for a piece of paper that said you went there. The number of employers who have hired me for what my Bachelor’s of Science is for: 0. Programmers are probably screwing themselves if they are going to program later in life and using an LLM to write it. But something like 60-90 out of the 120 credit hours for that Bachelor’s degree are not programming courses. If I was in college today I could safely say I would know which courses I needed to pay attention to, and which ones I don’t. Hell I took Archeology of Caribbean Piracy one semester, fun course though.
Imagine borrowing $200k for an education, and then doing as much work as you can to actually learn the things you’re paying to know and then not being able to get a job
You frame that as if the same can’t happen if you use AI. At least if you actually do the work you have the knowledge and the ability to research.
My argument is knowledge is priceless, but education is worthless. Degrees now mean nothing whether AI assisted or not so going into insane debt for no reason is reckless.
If you’re coding or whatever this is fine. But I would really, really like my doctors and engineers to be educated by other doctors and engineers.
If you’re coding or whatever this is fine.
I want coders to learn from trusted sources too. How do you authorize a user and store the password (plain text, hash, encrypt)? Do you use MD5 or SHA-256? (Always hash passwords, don’t use MD5)
If you have to encrypt some information, do you use AES or Triple DES ? (never Triple DES)
When authorizing with OAuth, should one send the auth url, client id, client secret, scopes, and redirect url to the client machine? (yes, yes, no, yes, yes)
These are basic questions with answers that are easy to find…and many programmers get them very, very wrong. Mostly out of carelessness, often the question itself doesn’t even pop into their head.
You have way too much faith in humans.
Higher education needs to move with the times. Just like the old reason of “you won’t always have a calculator with you” for not allowing a calculator in an exam is outdated, writing essays and reports as assessment is outdated.
The entire system should be built around preparing people for the real world, giving them the knowledge and the skillset to succeed in their chosen field. Determining this by how many formulas, definitions, rules etc they can remember in a test environment does not do that. Asking them to write an essay or a report in their own time doesn’t do that, nor does saying they can’t use all the tools available to do so.
it really shows too because hiring people sucks these days nobody knows anything
What is that supposed to mean?
“I don’t understand that inexperienced people are inexperienced.”
Assuming they are referring to new graduates.
Always have been, as I’ve seen during my UCLA days of people buying exam answers from previous weekends and paying for papers, etc… I’m glad I never bothered, mostly because of dignity but what because I was poor (although those correlate). Rich people have plenty of ways to game the system, though.
I feel like one of the more important things to take away from this is the wildly different degrees to which various students use ai. Yes, 90% may use it, but there is a huge difference between “check following paper for grammar errors: …” and “write me a paper on the ethics of generative AI,” though an argument could be made that both are cheating. But there are things like “explain Taylor series to me in an intuitive way.” Like someone else here pointed out, a 1-2 minute conversation would be a very easy way for professors to find people who cheated. There seems to be a more common view (I see it a LOT on Lemmy) that all AI is completely evil and anything with a neural network is made by Satan. Nuance exists.
This. Especially in the humanities, the essay is the preferred form of assessment. I don’t have a birds eye view of all colleges, but I know that some of those courses should not have had essay exams. It’s as if teachers forget that other forms of examination exist.
Nuance?! On THE INTERNET?!
ABSURD!!!
I’d appreciate calls for nuance more if most of the time the people doing it weren’t just excusing hypocrisy and crimes against humanity.
Are you accusing me of excusing hypocrisy or crimes against humanity? (I’m guessing not the latter and also legitimately asking)
Cheating themselves out of education.
Yes but think of the debt they can accrue for the economy.
/s
When the only thing that matters is the piece of paper people will skip the fluff.
We can make it illegal for employers to discriminate based on education whenever we want to stop prioritizing degrees.
The main issue is that testing if someone knows and has the skills to do a job well (or at all) is a hard problem, whether you outsource that to people who write a piece of paper or try to do it in-house in the employing company. Hell, half the companies do not know if the employees they have had for years are any good at their job.
I get where you’re coming from, but in certain fields I don’t think that’s going to fly too far.
The guy selling me a sofa, I really don’t care if he has a bachelor’s degree or not. My doctor? Yeah, I kind of think he needs to have legitimately completed medical school.
Cool, certifications are different than degrees.
Part of the problem is we keep treating degrees like certifications.
