366
The greatest risk of AI in higher education isn’t cheating – it’s the erosion of learning itself
(theconversation.com)
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
I mean, that's always been the problem with cheating in higher education.
Nobody is actually harmed because you copied whole sections of your history essay from a friend who took the course 3 years ago or glanced at someone else's math test. Using AI to do these things is no different.
Yep. I said as much in a survey by my college.
They had two applicable questions: How can we best utilize AI? and What opportunities does [school] have in regards to AI (or smth)?
I told them: The best opportunity is to spearhead the effort to maintain human-focused learning. Offloading cognitive work to a machine is going to impair the learning itself and even the ability of the students to learn at all. Isn't learning the point of an educational institution?
The world has gone mad and it's making me mad.
I love that you said that and to bring this back to a deeply political point, the entire framing of AI assumes we have a severe shortage of human minds that are not being used to anywhere near their full potential.
You can't argue that enhancing two college students with 10 academic AIs is necessary because there aren't enough prospective students while we simultaneously cast immigrants back into the ocean as they try to immigrate to our countries and attend our universities to start lives they could never have imagined back home for whatever reason does it really matter 99.999% of the time? You can't argue the use of AI is necessary because we just don't have enough intelligence when there are homeless everywhere who are given no outlet by society to use their minds productively despite abundant evidence that structuring society this way only hurts ALL of our potential for intelligence both individually and collectively.
You can't argue that we need to pursue intelligence as a virtue over all else, whatever the hell that means anyways... and then ignore the incredible dehumanization so many people feel in their workplaces and that materially diminishes their potential for applied intelligence in a collective organization.
I am disgusted by this bifurcation of our valuing of human beings and our valuing of intelligence irrespective of how cool and interesting the idea is in the abstract of a sentient computer. I love Data, but Data would be shitting on all of the computer science focused people I see featured prominently in society and who are given billions and billions of dollars to piss away in vain cathedrals of bullshit. Data wouldn't have time for this, he would be out punching AR-15 toting ICE thugs in the face as they were attempting to kidnap children because in the end it is always children that are the source of intelligence, after all if adults already knew how to do it then it wouldn't be labelled the accolade of intelligent in the first place right? The thing with intelligence is it just takes a bit of time and care... something these "masters of intelligence" seem to have a pretty artificial understanding of.
I agree but the scale is different. When 10% of new grads are useless drones, society can bear the burden and shuffle them around. When it's 70%, we have a real problem (or opportunity for fascists).
Also, some cheaters were really creative. One dude wrote a cheat sheet on the inside of a plastic soda bottle label so that he could tilt the bottle and read the notes, untilt it and the soda would hide them. That kind of cheating is real problem solving!
My favourite cheating story was when a friend was permitted to take a couple of revision cards of notes into her final exam (as much as you could fit on the cards — one dude took a microscope into his exam, but that is fairly common, apparently). My friend had a form of synaesthesia that meant that whenever she saw letters, she saw colours. Each letter (and number, I think) had its own distinctive colour.
So what she did was she wrote her notes in colour, allowing her to encode an entire additional layer of information. So let's say the letters in the word "carbon" appeared to her as being red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple, then she could write the word oxygen with the "o" in red, the "x" in orange", the "y" in yellow etc., and end up with something that a normal person would read as "oxygen", but she would be able to read it as "oxygen" and "carbon" simultaneously. Apparently it took work to be able to efficiently read two layers of information at once (or to focus on one layer and not be distracted by the other), but she started playing around with this back in highschool. She told me that the hardest part of this process was finding some coloured fineliners that were precisely the right colour for each letter.
However, she found that she was unsatisfied with the amount of extra information she was able to encode in this way. So instead, she broke down each letter into multiple chunks. So if she wrote the letter "o" in "oxygen" using 3 different colours (red, orange and yellow", and the "x" with "green, blue, purple", then she has managed to encode the entire word "carbon" into the space of only two letters. In the end, I think she was able to encode 6-8 times the information density into her permitted notes.
But the most funny thing about this is that producing these notes took so much effort and focus that she accidentally learned the content so well she didn't even need the notes. Task failed successfully, I guess? (If the task was writing some useful notes using this weird brain quirk or hers). She was salty at first at the wasted effort of making the notes, but I think she was glad to get to have such an absurd project
I can't imagine what it must be like to perceive the world like that. It really cooks my brain. I remember I once wrote down a word in regular black ink, and asked her what colours it appeared as. Then I wrote down the same word but in red ink, and asked her if she could tell that it was red, and whether she could simultaneously still see the same colours as before. She told me that yes, she could, and honestly, my mind is blown anew every time I think of this.
Gosh, that was longer than I expected. It was fun to write though. I hope at least one person finds it fun to read too.
I don't have synesthesia, but writing your own notes/summarizing the text helping to absorb the information is a valid learning technique.
The extra layer of complexity with perfecting color differently sounds super trippy though!
I’ve heard of writing on the inside of a water bottle label. But the soda is genius as you have to tilt to reveal it, otherwise it remains hidden.
Actually there's someone that is harmed. The one that cheated. You're here to learn this stuff. If you're there just to cheat just drop out