Comment by nradov
9 hours ago
I sympathize with the instructors to an extent, but the reality is that LLMs will be a pervasive part of life going forward. Schools need to completely reinvent their curriculum around that new reality. It's going to be a painful process for instructors accustomed to the old way of teaching.
The reality is that it’s not possible to learn if one offloads the work itself to an LLM
A more accurate phrasing is: It's significantly less likely that one learns the portion of the work they offload to an LLM.
A random anecdote is that most of the people I know who went very far in theoretical math are relatively poor at basic mental arithmetic, because they always think in the abstract and offload addition and multiplication to the calculator. It doesn't mean they can't do it, they just aren't as practiced or as fast at it.
That's just a poor analogy. A better one would be with lobotimized people doing math.
Just like how you significantly increased the difficulty of exams in "open book" exams in the past where the only way to pass the open book exam was to know the material well, you similarly need to increase the difficulty of other work where it won't matter if you have an LLM, because you won't pass without knowing your shit either!
The problem is that only works at the advanced courses. However people need to learn the basics before they reach that level, specially when they are starting and are in many regards below the LLM's baseline.
Says who?
Your work will be ‘graded’ by other humans who don’t know what they are talking about, or an LLM which will assume the median answer is correct?
They learn if they have to, like we always did. In-person exams (proctored) are good for testing that.
[dead]