←back to thread

395 points pseudolus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.72s | 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 #
fransje26 ◴[] No.43642320[source]
> 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

That sounds like setting-up your child for failure, to put it bluntly.

How do you want to express a thought clearly if you already fail at the stage of thinking about words clearly?

You start with a fuzzy understanding of words, which you delegated to a spellchecker, added to a fuzzy understanding of writing, which you've delegated to a computer, combined with a fuzzy memory, which you've delegated to a search engine, and you expect that not to impact your child's ability to create articulate thoughts and navigate them clearly?

To add irony to the situation, the physical navigation skills have, themselves, been delegated to a GPS..

Brains are like muscles, they atrophy when not used.

Reverse that course before it's too late, or suffer (and have someone else suffer) the consequences.

replies(1): >>43642517 #
1. lupusreal ◴[] No.43642517[source]
I agree with your point, but I just want to say that understanding a word and knowing how to spell it are orthogonal.
replies(1): >>43647990 #
2. fransje26 ◴[] No.43647990[source]
This is a good point, and part of the unwritten rationale of the argument I was trying to make.

At first glance, knowing how to spell a word and understanding a word should be perfectly orthogonal. How could it not be? Saying that it is not so would imply that civilizations without writing would have no thought or could not communicate through words, which is preposterous.

And yet, once we start delegating our thinking, our spelling and our writing to external black boxes, our grasp on those words and our grasp of those words becomes weaker. To the point that knowing how to spell a word might become a much bigger part, relatively, of our encounter with those words, as we are doing less conceptual thinking about those words and their meaning.

And therefore, I argue that, in a not too far-fetched extremum, understanding a word and knowing how to spell a word might not be fully orthogonal.

replies(1): >>43657575 #
3. lupusreal ◴[] No.43657575[source]
Well, I wouldn't say they're completely orthogonal, knowing how a word is spelled can sometimes give insight into the meaning of the word. I think they're mostly orthogonal though; it's fairly common for people to know what a word means without knowing how to spell it, and on the flip side there are people, like Scrabble players, who know how to spell a lot of words which they don't really know the meaning of. I've heard of one guy who is a champion French Scrabble player who can't actually understand French.