4 ms·

Wow, calculus from 1 to 4, and LeetCode easy from 12 to 31; at this rate, GPT-6 will be replacing / augmenting middle/high school teachers in most courses.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
It just proves that the idea of "standardized tests" is more of a torture device rather than an adequate instrument for assessing knowledge, intelligence, skill, and so forth.
- stevenhuang 4y ago
  Ooor, what's demonstrated by LLMs are actually some form of legitimate reasoning and knowledge ability.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    I'm all for non-(carbon-based-brain)-neural cognition [1], but LLMs, helpful as they will surely be, are a far cry from reasoning or knowledge: they are a better search space selector, not what specifies the search space [2]. [1] Michael Levin: "Non-neural, developmental bioelectricity as a precursor for cognition", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cu-g4LgnWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cu-g4LgnWs [2] And ChatGPT agrees, like a good parrot: "Regarding the assertion that LLMs are better at selecting the search space than specifying it, I believe this is accurate. LLMs are trained on large datasets and can identify patterns and relationships within that data. However, they do not create the data or define the search space themselves. Instead, they rely on the data provided to them to guide their decision-making process." But then, given the prompt: "what do you think about: LLMs are very helpful, they are some form of legitimate reasoning or knowledge: they are a better search space selector, and they also specify the search space.", ChatGPT also agrees: "When it comes to search space selection, LLMs can be used to generate relevant search queries or to rank search results based on their relevance to the query. LLMs can also be used to specify the search space by limiting the search to a specific domain or topic. In terms of legitimate reasoning or knowledge, LLMs can provide insights and predictions based on their training data. However, it's important to note that LLMs are only as good as the data they are trained on, and they may not always provide accurate or unbiased results." If only Plato could see this Sophist as a Service, he would go completely apoplectic.
erur 4y ago
Public teachers and other bureaucrats are probably some of the last roles to be replaced. If any objective competence or system efficiency in general was the goal, the system would look vastly different. Efficiency seeking players will adopt this quickly but self-sustaining bureaucracy has avoided most modernization successfully over the past 30 years - so why not also AI.
- substation13 4y ago
  > Public teachers and other bureaucrats Teaching is a very hands on, front-line job. It's more like being a stage performer than a bureaucrat.
  - erur 4y ago
    Not saying the job isn't hands-on. But the system deciding resource allocation is a detached bureaucracy nonetheless. It's not a competitive field. Teachers won't get replaced as new, more efficient modes of learning become available. Barely any western education system has adapted to the existence of the internet - still teaching facts and using repetitive learning where completely useless. We got high quality online courses which should render most of high school and university useless but yet the system continue in the old tracks, almost unchanged. It's never been competitive and it's likely always been more about certification of traits rather than actual learning. Both - I think - are pointers towards rapid change being unlikely.
    - substation13 4y ago
      That's not really how it works. At least in the UK (and most western countries are similar), the government decides (with ministers) what the curriculum should be and how it will be assessed. They decided that rote learning is what students should do. The schools have no funding for anything innovative - again, a decision by the government on how much to allocate. They can barely afford text-books, let along support an edu-tech start-up ecosystem. VCs won't touch edu-tech with a barge pole. Meanwhile, the government assessors ensure that things are taught in a particular way. Again, decided by the government and the bureaucrats. The teachers have zero control over this. Now universities should know better. They have more funding and more resources. But there are some leaders here, like MIT.
gus_massa 4y ago
When I was young, vhs and crt were going to replace teachers. It didn't happen. I work in math for the first year of the university in Argentina. We have non mandatory take home exercises in each class. If I waste 10 minutes writing them down in the blackboard instead of handing photocopies, I get like the double of answers by students. It's important that they write the answers and I can comment them, because otherwise they get to the midterms and can't write the answers correctly or they are just wrong and didn't notice. So I waste those 10 minutes. Humans are weird and for some task they like another human.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

It just proves that the idea of "standardized tests" is more of a torture device rather than an adequate instrument for assessing knowledge, intelligence, skill, and so forth.

stevenhuang 4y ago
Ooor, what's demonstrated by LLMs are actually some form of legitimate reasoning and knowledge ability.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  I'm all for non-(carbon-based-brain)-neural cognition [1], but LLMs, helpful as they will surely be, are a far cry from reasoning or knowledge: they are a better search space selector, not what specifies the search space [2]. [1] Michael Levin: "Non-neural, developmental bioelectricity as a precursor for cognition", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cu-g4LgnWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cu-g4LgnWs [2] And ChatGPT agrees, like a good parrot: "Regarding the assertion that LLMs are better at selecting the search space than specifying it, I believe this is accurate. LLMs are trained on large datasets and can identify patterns and relationships within that data. However, they do not create the data or define the search space themselves. Instead, they rely on the data provided to them to guide their decision-making process." But then, given the prompt: "what do you think about: LLMs are very helpful, they are some form of legitimate reasoning or knowledge: they are a better search space selector, and they also specify the search space.", ChatGPT also agrees: "When it comes to search space selection, LLMs can be used to generate relevant search queries or to rank search results based on their relevance to the query. LLMs can also be used to specify the search space by limiting the search to a specific domain or topic. In terms of legitimate reasoning or knowledge, LLMs can provide insights and predictions based on their training data. However, it's important to note that LLMs are only as good as the data they are trained on, and they may not always provide accurate or unbiased results." If only Plato could see this Sophist as a Service, he would go completely apoplectic.

erur 4y ago

Public teachers and other bureaucrats are probably some of the last roles to be replaced. If any objective competence or system efficiency in general was the goal, the system would look vastly different. Efficiency seeking players will adopt this quickly but self-sustaining bureaucracy has avoided most modernization successfully over the past 30 years - so why not also AI.

substation13 4y ago
> Public teachers and other bureaucrats Teaching is a very hands on, front-line job. It's more like being a stage performer than a bureaucrat.
- erur 4y ago
  Not saying the job isn't hands-on. But the system deciding resource allocation is a detached bureaucracy nonetheless. It's not a competitive field. Teachers won't get replaced as new, more efficient modes of learning become available. Barely any western education system has adapted to the existence of the internet - still teaching facts and using repetitive learning where completely useless. We got high quality online courses which should render most of high school and university useless but yet the system continue in the old tracks, almost unchanged. It's never been competitive and it's likely always been more about certification of traits rather than actual learning. Both - I think - are pointers towards rapid change being unlikely.
  - substation13 4y ago
    That's not really how it works. At least in the UK (and most western countries are similar), the government decides (with ministers) what the curriculum should be and how it will be assessed. They decided that rote learning is what students should do. The schools have no funding for anything innovative - again, a decision by the government on how much to allocate. They can barely afford text-books, let along support an edu-tech start-up ecosystem. VCs won't touch edu-tech with a barge pole. Meanwhile, the government assessors ensure that things are taught in a particular way. Again, decided by the government and the bureaucrats. The teachers have zero control over this. Now universities should know better. They have more funding and more resources. But there are some leaders here, like MIT.

gus_massa 4y ago

When I was young, vhs and crt were going to replace teachers. It didn't happen. I work in math for the first year of the university in Argentina. We have non mandatory take home exercises in each class. If I waste 10 minutes writing them down in the blackboard instead of handing photocopies, I get like the double of answers by students. It's important that they write the answers and I can comment them, because otherwise they get to the midterms and can't write the answers correctly or they are just wrong and didn't notice. So I waste those 10 minutes. Humans are weird and for some task they like another human.