3 ms·

> feel like Anthropic has an incentive to minimize how much students use LLMs to write their papers for them You're right. Quite incredibly, they also do the

> feel like Anthropic has an incentive to minimize how much students use LLMs to write their papers for them You're right. Quite incredibly, they also do the opposite, in that they hype-up / inflate the capability of their LLMs. For instance, they've categorised "summarisation" as "high-order thinking" ("Create", per Bloom's Taxonomy). It patently isn't. Comical they'd not only think so, but also publicly blog about it.

xpe 2y ago
> Bloom's taxonomy is a framework for categorizing educational goals, developed by a committee of educators chaired by Benjamin Bloom in 1956. ... In 2001, this taxonomy was revised, renaming and reordering the levels as Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. This domain focuses on intellectual skills and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. - Wikipedia This context is important: this taxonomy did not emerge from artificial intelligence nor cognitive science. So its levels are unlikely to map to how ML/AI people assess the difficulty of various categories of tasks. Generative models are, by design, fast (and often pretty good) at generation (creation), but this isn't the same standard that Bloom had in mind with his "creation" category. Bloom's taxonomy might be better described as a hierarchy: proper creation draws upon all the layers below it: understanding, application, analysis, and evaluation.
- xpe 2y ago
  Here is one key take-away, phrased as a question: when a student uses an LLM for "creation", are underlying aspects (understanding, application, analysis, and evaluation) part of the learning process?