←back to thread

395 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
zebomon ◴[] No.43634458[source]
The writing is irrelevant. Who cares if students don't learn how to do it? Or if the magazines are all mostly generated a decade from now? All of that labor spent on writing wasn't really making economic sense.

The problem with that take is this: it was never about the act of writing. What we lose, if we cut humans out of the equation, is writing as a proxy for what actually matters, which is thinking.

You'll soon notice the downsides of not-thinking (at scale!) if you have a generation of students who weren't taught to exercise their thinking by writing.

I hope that more people come around to this way of seeing things. It seems like a problem that will be much easier to mitigate than to fix after the fact.

A little self-promo: I'm building a tool to help students and writers create proof that they have written something the good ol fashioned way. Check it out at https://itypedmypaper.com and let me know what you think!

replies(7): >>43634700 #>>43634723 #>>43634750 #>>43634975 #>>43638598 #>>43641238 #>>43641279 #
janalsncm ◴[] No.43634723[source]
How does your product prevent a person from simply retyping something that ChatGPT wrote?

I think the prevalence of these AI writing bots means schools will have to start doing things that aren’t scalable: in-class discussions, in-person writing (with pen and paper or locked down computers), way less weight given to remote assignments on Canvas or other software. Attributing authorship from text alone (or keystroke patterns) is not possible.

replies(2): >>43634905 #>>43636208 #
1. logicchains ◴[] No.43636208[source]
>I think the prevalence of these AI writing bots means schools will have to start doing things that aren’t scalable

It won't be long 'til we're at the point that embodied AI can be used for scalable face-to-face assessment that can't be cheated any easier than a human assessor.