3 ms·

This is such a naive, simplistic, distrusting and ultimately monastic perspective. An assumption here is that university students are uncritical and incapable

This is such a naive, simplistic, distrusting and ultimately monastic perspective. An assumption here is that university students are uncritical and incapable of learning while utilizing AI as an instrument of mind. I think a much more prescient assessment would be that presence of AI demands a transformation and evolution of university curricula and assessment - and the author details early attempts at this -- but declares them failures and uncritical acquiescence. AI is literally built from staggeringly large subsets of human knowledge -- university cultures that refuse to critically participate and evolve with this development, and react by attempting to deny student access, do not deserve the title "university" -- perhaps "college", or the more fitting "monastery", would suffice. The obsession with "cheating", the fallacy that every individual needs to be assessed hermetically, has denied the reality (for centuries) that we are a collective and, now more than ever, embody a rich mass mind. Successful students will grow and flourish with these developments, and institutions of higher learning ought to as well.

add-sub-mul-div 11mo ago
Even conceding that you, the person reading this comment, will only use AI the right way. With diligence and curiosity. It takes a significant amount of denial not to understand that the majority of people see AI a shortcut to do their job with the least possible amount of effort, or as a way to cheat. These are the people you will be interacting with for the coming decades of your life.
- waffletower 11mo ago
  If a student is given a task that a machine can do, and there is some intrinsic value for the student to perform this task manually and hermetically, this value ought to be explained to the student, and they can decide for themselves how to confront the challenge. I think LLMs pose an excellent challenge to educators -- if they are lazily asking for regurgitation from students they are likely to receive machine-aided regurgitation in 2025.
ragingregard 11mo ago
> This is such a naive, simplistic, distrusting and ultimately monastic perspective This is such a disingenuous take on the article, there's nothing naive or simplistic about it, it's literally full of critical thought linking to more critical thought of other academic observers to what's happening at the educational level. The context in your reply implies you read at most the first 10% of the article. The article flagged numerous issues with LLM application in the educational setting including 1) critical thinking skills, brain connectivity and memory recall are falling as usage rises, students are turning into operators and are not getting the cognitive development they would thru self-learning 2) Employment pressures have turned universities into credentialing institutions vs learning institutions, LLMs have accelerated these pressures significantly 3) Cognitive development is being sacrificed with long term implications on students 4) School admins are pushing LLM programs without consultation, as experiments instead of in partnership with faculty. Private industry style disruption. The article does not oppose LLM as learning assistant, it does oppose it as the central tool to cognitive development, which is the opposite of what it accomplishes. The author argues universities should be primarily for cognitive development. > Successful students will grow and flourish with these developments, and institutions of higher learning ought to as well. Might as well work at OpenAI marketing with bold statements like that.
- waffletower 11mo ago
  The core premise is decidedly naive and simplistic -- AI is used to cheat and students can't be trusted with it. This thesis is carried through the entirety of the article.
  - ragingregard 11mo ago
    That's not the core premise of this article, go read the article to the end and don't use your LLM to summarize it. The core premise is cognitive development of students is being impaired with long term implications for society without any care or thought by university admins and corporate operators. It's disturbing when people comment on things they don't bother reading, literally aligning with the point the article is arguing, that critical thinking is decaying.
computerthings 11mo ago
[dead]
turzmo 11mo ago
No you are wrong. Students use AI not to augment their minds, but to replace the use of them.

add-sub-mul-div 11mo ago

Even conceding that you, the person reading this comment, will only use AI the right way. With diligence and curiosity. It takes a significant amount of denial not to understand that the majority of people see AI a shortcut to do their job with the least possible amount of effort, or as a way to cheat. These are the people you will be interacting with for the coming decades of your life.

waffletower 11mo ago
If a student is given a task that a machine can do, and there is some intrinsic value for the student to perform this task manually and hermetically, this value ought to be explained to the student, and they can decide for themselves how to confront the challenge. I think LLMs pose an excellent challenge to educators -- if they are lazily asking for regurgitation from students they are likely to receive machine-aided regurgitation in 2025.

ragingregard 11mo ago

> This is such a naive, simplistic, distrusting and ultimately monastic perspective This is such a disingenuous take on the article, there's nothing naive or simplistic about it, it's literally full of critical thought linking to more critical thought of other academic observers to what's happening at the educational level. The context in your reply implies you read at most the first 10% of the article. The article flagged numerous issues with LLM application in the educational setting including 1) critical thinking skills, brain connectivity and memory recall are falling as usage rises, students are turning into operators and are not getting the cognitive development they would thru self-learning 2) Employment pressures have turned universities into credentialing institutions vs learning institutions, LLMs have accelerated these pressures significantly 3) Cognitive development is being sacrificed with long term implications on students 4) School admins are pushing LLM programs without consultation, as experiments instead of in partnership with faculty. Private industry style disruption. The article does not oppose LLM as learning assistant, it does oppose it as the central tool to cognitive development, which is the opposite of what it accomplishes. The author argues universities should be primarily for cognitive development. > Successful students will grow and flourish with these developments, and institutions of higher learning ought to as well. Might as well work at OpenAI marketing with bold statements like that.

waffletower 11mo ago
The core premise is decidedly naive and simplistic -- AI is used to cheat and students can't be trusted with it. This thesis is carried through the entirety of the article.
- ragingregard 11mo ago
  That's not the core premise of this article, go read the article to the end and don't use your LLM to summarize it. The core premise is cognitive development of students is being impaired with long term implications for society without any care or thought by university admins and corporate operators. It's disturbing when people comment on things they don't bother reading, literally aligning with the point the article is arguing, that critical thinking is decaying.

computerthings 11mo ago

[dead]

turzmo 11mo ago

No you are wrong. Students use AI not to augment their minds, but to replace the use of them.