4 ms·

ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. I'm a prof, and my experience so far is that - where AI is concerned - there are two kinds of students: (1) th

ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. I'm a prof, and my experience so far is that - where AI is concerned - there are two kinds of students: (1) those who use AI to support their learning, and (2) those who use AI to do their assignments, thus avoiding learning altogether. In some classes this has flipped the bell curve on its head: lots of students at either end, and no one in the middle

throwaway290 1y ago
No, now there is more people who are not learning. Previously students had to learn. Group 2 was very small because you had to be very lucky to get your assignments done for you without learning at least something yourself. And if you half assed your assignment it would be noticeable by the lecturer. Now it is a no brainer for many people to be in group 2
ViscountPenguin 1y ago
Quantity is a quality all its own, it's significantly easier to be lazy with LLMs than with oldschool cheating methods, this changes the equilibrium point at which people will cheat. So if you're a student, you're now even more likely to be dragging along deadweight than you were a decade ago.
- mattgreenrocks 1y ago
  Yes, I think many aren’t realizing this. It is much easier to be lazy, much faster to get something plausible, and not culturally looked down upon. It is also easier to say, “I’ll ask ChatGPT to help me with my main points,” and fall into having it write the essay for you. Changing the defaults (as they were) changes the system, given enough time. Perhaps the worst aspect of LLMs is they can support us in our “productivity,” when we’re actually trying to avoid the hard work of thinking. This sort of technology-assisted self-delusion feels very similar to social media: “I’m not hiding from life and people, I’m talking to them on Twitter!”
BOOSTERHIDROGEN 1y ago
For category 1, they can too fall into temptation of just not trying hard enough solving the homework/assignment. This is interesting era I think.
senectus1 1y ago
yup, AI is next level useful when treated as a rubber duck + search engine. Its absolutely a backstabbing saboteur if you blindly trust everything it outputs. Inquisitive skepticism is a super power in the age of AI atm.
meander_water 1y ago
Google, Anthropic and OpenAI are well aware of this. They've pushed out features like study mode and guided learning, but they're barely a band aid fix. The people who want to bypass learning and just get the degree now have a cheaper way. Instead of paying someone else to do their homework, they pay a bot.
- moffkalast 1y ago
  Well given that a large portion of the jobs today are meaningless busywork that only exist so people have something to do, I guess we now also have the education level to match them.
Frieren 1y ago
> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. That's a very unuseful way of looking at it. It solves nothing. ChatGPT has created a problem, we need to look ways of solving it. Unregulated technology is harmful, we need regulations that limit the bad use cases. To just blame people so, lets be real, your shares on bit tech corporations go up is destructive for society. This tools, like social media, are harming people and should be regulated to work for us. If they cannot then shut them off.
- pipes 1y ago
  And who gets to decide that?
  - delusional 1y ago
    Democracy
    - rrgok 1y ago
      Ahah good one...
    - pipes 1y ago
      Where does democracy start and personal choice end?
- bradley13 1y ago
  Seriously? Regulate use cases? That's sort of like the very short-lived attempt to regulate automobiles, by requiring someone to walk in front of every vehicle, ringing a bell. Actual, useful AI is a disruptive technology, just as the automobile was. Trying to regulate use cases is the wrong solution. We need to find out how this technology is going to be integrated into our lives.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    This is why we should allow kids to drive cars in gym class.
nomius10 1y ago
> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. This is a prime example of thinking exclusively along the lines of rugged individualism. It assigns all blame on the individual, whilst ignoring any systemic or collective causes. It ignores the socio-economic realities of the students. Especially if they come from a challenged background. To them the important thing is getting the high paying job which represents a ticket out of the lower class, and if that can be optimized, it's a no brainer that they would take that route. It ignores the fact that the actual credential paper is more important to recruiters than the knowledge gained though the program. Or even that networking and referrals has a much larger weight than raw skill in recruiting than we'd like to admit, from our meritocratic perception. It ignores the fact that maybe the module itself is not that valuable? We're talking about the US here, and people literally pay out of pocket for education. And yet they cheat/skip it in a heartbeat. The only valid rationale is that there is no value there from an economics lens. They'd rather spend that time doing extracurricular activities that actually improve their chances of getting employed. It ignores the fact that since the industrial revolution the education system has not evolved at all (merely adding a computer lab does not mean the system was reworked, it's the other way around, the new technology was adapted into the existing system). The education system has flaws. The incentives in the job marketplace have flaws. There are many factors at play here, and simply arguing that "it's the student's fault" is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.
BrtByte 1y ago
Yep, the curious students suddenly have a supertool to dig deeper and experiment more, while the disengaged ones now have a shortcut that lets them skip thinking entirely

throwaway290 1y ago

No, now there is more people who are not learning. Previously students had to learn. Group 2 was very small because you had to be very lucky to get your assignments done for you without learning at least something yourself. And if you half assed your assignment it would be noticeable by the lecturer. Now it is a no brainer for many people to be in group 2

ViscountPenguin 1y ago

Quantity is a quality all its own, it's significantly easier to be lazy with LLMs than with oldschool cheating methods, this changes the equilibrium point at which people will cheat. So if you're a student, you're now even more likely to be dragging along deadweight than you were a decade ago.

mattgreenrocks 1y ago
Yes, I think many aren’t realizing this. It is much easier to be lazy, much faster to get something plausible, and not culturally looked down upon. It is also easier to say, “I’ll ask ChatGPT to help me with my main points,” and fall into having it write the essay for you. Changing the defaults (as they were) changes the system, given enough time. Perhaps the worst aspect of LLMs is they can support us in our “productivity,” when we’re actually trying to avoid the hard work of thinking. This sort of technology-assisted self-delusion feels very similar to social media: “I’m not hiding from life and people, I’m talking to them on Twitter!”

BOOSTERHIDROGEN 1y ago

For category 1, they can too fall into temptation of just not trying hard enough solving the homework/assignment. This is interesting era I think.

senectus1 1y ago

yup, AI is next level useful when treated as a rubber duck + search engine. Its absolutely a backstabbing saboteur if you blindly trust everything it outputs. Inquisitive skepticism is a super power in the age of AI atm.

meander_water 1y ago

Google, Anthropic and OpenAI are well aware of this. They've pushed out features like study mode and guided learning, but they're barely a band aid fix. The people who want to bypass learning and just get the degree now have a cheaper way. Instead of paying someone else to do their homework, they pay a bot.

moffkalast 1y ago
Well given that a large portion of the jobs today are meaningless busywork that only exist so people have something to do, I guess we now also have the education level to match them.

Frieren 1y ago

> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. That's a very unuseful way of looking at it. It solves nothing. ChatGPT has created a problem, we need to look ways of solving it. Unregulated technology is harmful, we need regulations that limit the bad use cases. To just blame people so, lets be real, your shares on bit tech corporations go up is destructive for society. This tools, like social media, are harming people and should be regulated to work for us. If they cannot then shut them off.

pipes 1y ago
And who gets to decide that?
- delusional 1y ago
  Democracy
  - rrgok 1y ago
    Ahah good one...
  - pipes 1y ago
    Where does democracy start and personal choice end?
bradley13 1y ago
Seriously? Regulate use cases? That's sort of like the very short-lived attempt to regulate automobiles, by requiring someone to walk in front of every vehicle, ringing a bell. Actual, useful AI is a disruptive technology, just as the automobile was. Trying to regulate use cases is the wrong solution. We need to find out how this technology is going to be integrated into our lives.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  This is why we should allow kids to drive cars in gym class.

nomius10 1y ago

> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did. This is a prime example of thinking exclusively along the lines of rugged individualism. It assigns all blame on the individual, whilst ignoring any systemic or collective causes. It ignores the socio-economic realities of the students. Especially if they come from a challenged background. To them the important thing is getting the high paying job which represents a ticket out of the lower class, and if that can be optimized, it's a no brainer that they would take that route. It ignores the fact that the actual credential paper is more important to recruiters than the knowledge gained though the program. Or even that networking and referrals has a much larger weight than raw skill in recruiting than we'd like to admit, from our meritocratic perception. It ignores the fact that maybe the module itself is not that valuable? We're talking about the US here, and people literally pay out of pocket for education. And yet they cheat/skip it in a heartbeat. The only valid rationale is that there is no value there from an economics lens. They'd rather spend that time doing extracurricular activities that actually improve their chances of getting employed. It ignores the fact that since the industrial revolution the education system has not evolved at all (merely adding a computer lab does not mean the system was reworked, it's the other way around, the new technology was adapted into the existing system). The education system has flaws. The incentives in the job marketplace have flaws. There are many factors at play here, and simply arguing that "it's the student's fault" is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.

BrtByte 1y ago

Yep, the curious students suddenly have a supertool to dig deeper and experiment more, while the disengaged ones now have a shortcut that lets them skip thinking entirely