3 ms·

>The whole point of testing is to put them in hypothetical situations and grade their progress with purpose of being aware of their development so we can improv

>The whole point of testing is to put them in hypothetical situations and grade their progress with purpose of being aware of their development so we can improve it. Another thing we do is selecting the particularly good ones for further advanced training. You're missing the point. Why are we making them achieve progress on something that is being trivialized by AI? Let them use AI as a complementary tool and test them on something that requires measurable human skill. If this is difficult it's a sign that perhaps you're not teaching anything valuable.

rocketbop 4y ago
Respectfully, I think it's you who are missing the point. There is value in teaching humans to communicate and synthesize information. It's possible that in the future the best thinkers and philosophers and historians and political analysts will be AI, but 1/ we are very very far from that, and 2/ it's important for civilisation that we don't leave thinking to the machines.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Exactly, educations is not a vocational school where we teach people useful skills so they start doing whatever they learned. Machines have long been able to do things that we teach in the schools, the purpose of teaching is developing people. Once they are developed(that means they built understanding of how nature and society works and how to interact with) and its time to expect an output, only then we can talk about teaching useful skills. Vocational schools do exist and they are useful but that's not what we are concerned about. People who cheat not to learn useful skills simply spend their time and money.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ok_dad 4y ago
  > There is value in teaching humans to communicate and synthesize information. Why just use the written word via essays? You could use other forms of media such as video, physical art, or maybe programming to teach this as well. The five paragraph essay isn’t the only game in town!
- solarmist 4y ago
  Similar arguments were/are made about the use of calculators. It will go the same way. You need to understand the basics (to various degrees depending on the direction of your education), then learn how to use the new tools we are creating. Honestly, I'd prefer we treat this as an opportunity to introduce tight feedback loops into essay writing the way we do with programming. Then evaluate the end result as a whole rather than a way to nitpick grammar rules.
drdeca 4y ago
Curriculum learning. It is pedagogically useful to teach simpler and easier versions of something before teaching the harder versions. While you likely always have a calculator with you which can do division much more quickly than you can do long division, if you want to teach students more advanced math, it is nonetheless useful to have previously taught them long division of numbers, so that you can teach them long division of polynomials. If students haven't learned how to do long division of decimals, and how that works, it is harder to teach them to do long division of polynomials. Of course, nowadays there are computer programs which can do long division of polynomials more quickly than a person can, but this is just an example. Suppose there are a sequence of levels, where for each level n, it is much easier to teach someone level n+1 if they already have an understanding of level n. If computers can do levels up to level k faster than humans can, it may still be useful to start teaching someone at level 1 and then proceed to level 2, and so on, even though computers can already do those levels, until finally it is time to teach them level k+1 which we have not yet managed to teach computers to do.
varajelle 4y ago
I think it's the same reason why we are teaching assembly even if there are compilers. Or teaching Latin even though it's a dead language

rocketbop 4y ago

Respectfully, I think it's you who are missing the point. There is value in teaching humans to communicate and synthesize information. It's possible that in the future the best thinkers and philosophers and historians and political analysts will be AI, but 1/ we are very very far from that, and 2/ it's important for civilisation that we don't leave thinking to the machines.

mrtksn 4y ago
Exactly, educations is not a vocational school where we teach people useful skills so they start doing whatever they learned. Machines have long been able to do things that we teach in the schools, the purpose of teaching is developing people. Once they are developed(that means they built understanding of how nature and society works and how to interact with) and its time to expect an output, only then we can talk about teaching useful skills. Vocational schools do exist and they are useful but that's not what we are concerned about. People who cheat not to learn useful skills simply spend their time and money.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ok_dad 4y ago
> There is value in teaching humans to communicate and synthesize information. Why just use the written word via essays? You could use other forms of media such as video, physical art, or maybe programming to teach this as well. The five paragraph essay isn’t the only game in town!
solarmist 4y ago
Similar arguments were/are made about the use of calculators. It will go the same way. You need to understand the basics (to various degrees depending on the direction of your education), then learn how to use the new tools we are creating. Honestly, I'd prefer we treat this as an opportunity to introduce tight feedback loops into essay writing the way we do with programming. Then evaluate the end result as a whole rather than a way to nitpick grammar rules.

drdeca 4y ago

Curriculum learning. It is pedagogically useful to teach simpler and easier versions of something before teaching the harder versions. While you likely always have a calculator with you which can do division much more quickly than you can do long division, if you want to teach students more advanced math, it is nonetheless useful to have previously taught them long division of numbers, so that you can teach them long division of polynomials. If students haven't learned how to do long division of decimals, and how that works, it is harder to teach them to do long division of polynomials. Of course, nowadays there are computer programs which can do long division of polynomials more quickly than a person can, but this is just an example. Suppose there are a sequence of levels, where for each level n, it is much easier to teach someone level n+1 if they already have an understanding of level n. If computers can do levels up to level k faster than humans can, it may still be useful to start teaching someone at level 1 and then proceed to level 2, and so on, even though computers can already do those levels, until finally it is time to teach them level k+1 which we have not yet managed to teach computers to do.

varajelle 4y ago

I think it's the same reason why we are teaching assembly even if there are compilers. Or teaching Latin even though it's a dead language