4 ms·

Just as an opposing anecdote, when I was doing CS at uni the group project, which was randomly allocated, was just as bad and this was 20 years ago. Only one ot

by jemmyw 2y ago

Just as an opposing anecdote, when I was doing CS at uni the group project, which was randomly allocated, was just as bad and this was 20 years ago. Only one other person in my group could coherently program and he was shit. So I did all the code. It was isolating in that situation too. Gpt might not be a factor, it's just the flavour of the moment. I was a bad student because I didn't need to try. Those few of my peers who did try and were good just blew it out the park because the competition was abysmal. This was a uni in the UK with a fairly well respected CS department at the time.

addicted 2y ago
Your anecdote actually makes the AI future look worse and your experience much better. Setting aside the absolute quality of work and learning, in your situation, the people who tried did a lot better. There were actual incentives to trying and learning because you were rewarded with better grades and then going forward likely a better job and better career and life. OTOH, the commenter you’re replying to, is suggesting the opposite. As someone who’s not using AI and are actually putting in the effort, they’re not being rewarded for it to the point they’re considering whether they’re the stupid ones for trying to learn in a learning institution. The incentives are completely backwards.
James_K 2y ago
Now imagine that those other people decide to contribute by "writing" the report that you're going to get graded on, with no understanding of code and not doing it themselves. Imagine that some people who are semi-competent at programming decide to contribute likewise. It takes them from do-nothing layabouts to active hindrances. Much worse than someone not knowing anything is someone pretending to know something, and I thank my lucky stars that none of them tried to write the code with AI. > This was a uni in the UK with a fairly well respected CS department at the time. I feel this sentence.

by jemmyw 2y ago

addicted 2y ago

Your anecdote actually makes the AI future look worse and your experience much better. Setting aside the absolute quality of work and learning, in your situation, the people who tried did a lot better. There were actual incentives to trying and learning because you were rewarded with better grades and then going forward likely a better job and better career and life. OTOH, the commenter you’re replying to, is suggesting the opposite. As someone who’s not using AI and are actually putting in the effort, they’re not being rewarded for it to the point they’re considering whether they’re the stupid ones for trying to learn in a learning institution. The incentives are completely backwards.

James_K 2y ago

Now imagine that those other people decide to contribute by "writing" the report that you're going to get graded on, with no understanding of code and not doing it themselves. Imagine that some people who are semi-competent at programming decide to contribute likewise. It takes them from do-nothing layabouts to active hindrances. Much worse than someone not knowing anything is someone pretending to know something, and I thank my lucky stars that none of them tried to write the code with AI. > This was a uni in the UK with a fairly well respected CS department at the time. I feel this sentence.