←back to thread

461 points JumpCrisscross | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
jillesvangurp ◴[] No.41901741[source]
I'd expect smart people to be able to use tools to make their work easier. Including AI. The bigger picture here is that the current generation of students are going to be using and relying on AI the rest of their careers anyway. Making them do things the old fashioned way is not a productive way to educate them. The availability of these tools is actually an opportunity to raise the ambition level quite a bit.

Universities and teachers will need to adjust to the reality that this stuff is here to stay. There's some value in learning how to write properly, of course. But there are other ways of doing that. And some of those ways actually involve using LLMs to criticize and correct people's work instead of having poor teachers do that.

I did some teaching while I was doing a post doc twenty years ago. Reviewing poorly written student reports isn't exactly fun and I did a fair bit of that. But it strikes me how I could use LLMs to do the reviewing for me these days. And how I could force my students to up their standards of writing.

These were computer science students. Most of them were barely able to write a coherent sentence. The bar for acceptable was depressingly low. Failing 90% of the class was not a popular option with either students or staff. And it's actually hard work reviewing poorly written garbage. And having supported a few students with their master thesis work, many of them don't really progress much during their studies.

If I were to teach that class now, I would encourage students to use all the tools available to them. Especially AI. I'd set the bar pretty high.

replies(3): >>41901772 #>>41902192 #>>41909370 #
1. dot5xdev ◴[] No.41909370[source]
> I would encourage students to use all the tools available to them. Especially AI. I'd set the bar pretty high.

How would you set the bar pretty high? How would you avoid just evaluating ChatGPT, instead of the actual student?

replies(1): >>41911917 #
2. jillesvangurp ◴[] No.41911917[source]
Well, zero tolerance on grammar, spelling, etc, being bad obviously. I'd also insist on the thing being coherent and well structured. Both of which were huge problems when I was reviewing student papers. These are all things an LLM can help students with improving.

And of course if all papers are up to standards on that (which IMHO would be a massive improvement already from an educational point of view), you'd be looking for other criteria to judge the papers that maybe showcase things that are actually of value. Like problem solving, critical thinking, originality, etc. I'd be looking for signs of the student having a good grip on the subject matter.

Perhaps I'd do a little verbal exam. I might grill them a bit on the subject they wrote about and make sure they understand what they submitted. Somebody that did the leg work of coming up with something good and that did the research, would be able to answer questions about it and be able to discuss the key points. Ask them some questions about other work they are referencing. Etc.

I just think trying to keep students from using tools that are out there is a lost cause.