←back to thread

395 points pseudolus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.483s | source
Show context
dtnewman ◴[] No.43633873[source]
> 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 issue. For many students, it's literally "let me paste the assignment into ChatGPT and see what it spits out, change a few words and submit that".

I think the issue is that it's so tempting to lean on AI. I remember long nights struggling to implement complex data structures in CS classes. I'd work on something for an hour before I'd have an epiphany and figure out what was wrong. But that struggling was ultimately necessary to really learn the concepts. With AI, I can simply copy/paste my code and say "hey, what's wrong with this code?" and it'll often spot it (nevermind the fact that I can just ask ChatGPT "create a b-tree in C" and it'll do it). That's amazing in a sense, but also hurts the learning process.

replies(34): >>43633957 #>>43634006 #>>43634053 #>>43634075 #>>43634251 #>>43634294 #>>43634327 #>>43634339 #>>43634343 #>>43634407 #>>43634559 #>>43634566 #>>43634616 #>>43634842 #>>43635388 #>>43635498 #>>43635830 #>>43636831 #>>43638149 #>>43638980 #>>43639096 #>>43639628 #>>43639904 #>>43640528 #>>43640853 #>>43642243 #>>43642367 #>>43643255 #>>43645561 #>>43645638 #>>43646665 #>>43646725 #>>43647078 #>>43654777 #
bko ◴[] No.43634075[source]
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 legibly (most writing is done on computers), spell very well (spell check keeps us professional), reading a map to get around (GPS), etc

Not that these aren't noble things or worth doing, but they won't impact your life too much if you're not interest in penmanship, spelling, or cartography.

I believe LLMs are different (I am still stuck in the moral panic phase), but I think my children will have a different perspective (similar to how I feel about memorizing poetry and languages without garbage collection). So how do I answer my child when he asks "Why should I learn to do X if I can just ask an LLM and it will do it better than me"

replies(40): >>43634150 #>>43634156 #>>43634179 #>>43634211 #>>43634224 #>>43634268 #>>43634272 #>>43634362 #>>43634379 #>>43634426 #>>43634553 #>>43634592 #>>43634594 #>>43634728 #>>43634751 #>>43634838 #>>43635045 #>>43638038 #>>43638584 #>>43638671 #>>43638992 #>>43639074 #>>43639153 #>>43639324 #>>43639407 #>>43639632 #>>43639682 #>>43639789 #>>43639811 #>>43639836 #>>43639840 #>>43640113 #>>43640256 #>>43641056 #>>43641103 #>>43641125 #>>43641204 #>>43642320 #>>43646786 #>>43646876 #
kibwen ◴[] No.43634268[source]
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 of manufacturing my own writing implements with a modest amount of manual labor and abundantly-available resources (carving into wood, burning wood into charcoal to write on stone, etc.). But I ain't perfectly capable of doing the same to manufacture an integrated circuit, let alone a digital calculator, let alone a GPU, let alone an LLM. Anyone who delegates their thought to a corporation is permanently hitching their fundamental ability to think to this wagon.

replies(6): >>43634346 #>>43634369 #>>43634392 #>>43634610 #>>43639592 #>>43642011 #
1. gh0stcat ◴[] No.43639592[source]
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.

SOCRATES: You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse roams about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support.

PHAEDRUS: You are absolutely right about that, too.

SOCRATES: Now tell me, can we discern another kind of discourse, a legitimate brother of this one? Can we say how it comes about, and how it is by nature better and more capable?

PHAEDRUS: Which one is that? How do you think it comes about?

SOCRATES: It is a discourse that is written down, with knowledge, in the soul of the listener; it can defend itself, and it knows for whom it should speak and for whom it should remain silent.

[link](https://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-1/socrates-...)

replies(2): >>43641724 #>>43642528 #
2. namaria ◴[] No.43641724[source]
Thank you for bringing light to this.

I think it makes a very relevant point to us as well. The value of doing the work yourself is in internalizing and developing one's own cognition. The argument of offloading to the LLM to me sounds link arguing one should bring a forklift to the gym

Yes, it would be much less tiresome and you'd be able to lift orders of magnitude more weights. But is the goal of the gym to more efficiently lift as much weight as possible, or to tire oneself and thus develop muscles?

3. casey2 ◴[] No.43642528[source]
That's pretty funny, considering LLMs mostly solve his problem with writing. At the very least it's way better than his discourse "solution".