4 ms·
> One way to prevent this kind of cheating would be to require essays to be hand-written, or typed on a mechanical typewriter. That's useless, I'm afraid. Stud
by eszed 3y ago
> One way to prevent this kind of cheating would be to require essays to be hand-written, or typed on a mechanical typewriter.
That's useless, I'm afraid. Students will generate an LLM text, and then copy it out. If you lock down their machines, or university networks, then they'll access the LLMs another way. It's cat and mouse games all the way down, and we'll never win.
I mean, I get where you're coming from. I'm a humanities guy, through and through. I love writing essays - or, well, really dig having written a good one; the writing process is invariably a slog - and I'm good at it. The writing process catalyzes my learning and crystallizes my thoughts, etc etc. I believe all that stuff, preached it without irony, and spent countless hours in tutorials coaching students.
The trouble is, it doesn't really work. Writing a lot of essays makes only marginal improvements to students' writing, no matter how many tutorials and "writing labs" they go to. Reading complex texts, and learning and imitating good writing, teaches people how to write. And, you know, that only works when they want to a) read complex texts, and b) learn how to write well.
For the students who intrinsically neither a), nor b) - which is the vast, vast, vast majority - we could force them a bit, with grades. Now, however, there are LLMs, which break both halves of that method. Our whole approach to a system of study will have to change. I would rather find something new and useful than cling to a useless paradigm because I was once comfortable and successful within it.
- jcgrillo 3y ago> Students will generate an LLM text, and then copy it out. If you lock down their machines, or university networks, then they'll access the LLMs another way. It's cat and mouse games all the way down, and we'll never win. I think this is more a product of low standards than anything else. Let's bring the mean down to 2.0GPA. Not everyone should pass. Not everyone should graduate. Failure delivers valuable lessons, too. But I'm sorry, throwing up our hands and saying "oh well, I guess cheating is the norm now" is fatalist BS. > Reading complex texts, and learning and imitating good writing, teaches people how to write. And, you know, that only works when they want to a) read complex texts, and b) learn how to write well. I agree with this. Inspiration is super important, and inculcating a love of learning and the life of the mind is the whole ballgame. If the vast majority of students aren't in this boat, and instead they're just trying to check a box to graduate, the whole thing is super broken. But that doesn't mean it can't be fixed, and it doesn't mean we should lower standards in the face of a threat like LLMs. Instead we should raise them.
- eszed 3y agoI don't disagree with anything you wrote. Especially > inculcating a love of learning and the life of the mind is the whole ballgame. If the vast majority of students aren't in this boat, and instead they're just trying to check a box to graduate, the whole thing is super broken. Which... Yup. The whole thing is super broken. It has been for a generation. (It's maybe always been at least a little broken? Complaints about students not caring about the life of the mind and only craving the credential were common in the middle ages, too!) Here's a counterpoint for discussion, which I'm not sure I fully believe in: LLMs can support life-of-the-mind learning. (Even if you think they aren't there yet, their trajectory is clear.) Even apart from that, they will be used everywhere, outside of the classroom. Don't educators have a responsibility to train students in their responsible use?