Pete said, “Our present system cannot survive this.” I would modify that: “No education system can survive this, even new and innovative systems, like University of Austin.”
I wanted to vomit listening to that podcast today. The deep cynicism and amorality of Gherman is disturbing. His anti-intellectualism reminded me of Sam Bankman-Fried, who said about books: “I'm very skeptical of books. I don't want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. I think, if you wrote a book, you fucked up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post." My ability to think clearer has definitely been sharpened by years of reading and discussing — and occasionally writing about — philosophy. It’s often difficult work but it’s so rewarding. For Gherman, if you have to write a paper, the only objective would be to deliver (an AI-generated) paper. Learning is irrelevant. But learning is not irrelevant.
I appreciate the willingness to engage on the question of AI. Definitely one of the more important discussions of our time. One question I think you should've asked him was about AI hallucinations and things of that nature.
For instance, I heard about some lawyers, one in the US and another in Canada who used ChatGPT to collect citations for an argument they made in court. What they didn't check though was the validity of the citations. As a result, the judge noticed that several of the cases cited didn't exist. Apparently ChatGPT invented the citations out of whole cloth because it didn't know that you're not allowed to invent legal cases. The lawyers ended up going to jail for fraud.
So I think any discussions of AI should look at that as a problem. If you get a chance to speak to him again, you should ask him about what percentage of the citations being generated might be doing things like that. Not necessarily against people using these technologies, but we should be sure they work properly.
Have AI write a set of 3-5 questions , for each student, on each of the different written Papers using the paper as written. W/O using any of its content. Use AI to beat its own system.
Do In class debating to teach. Break a large class into groups of 6 3 against 3 graded by there pears. This is how scientist learn, on notes Speaking skills and and debate content. Pro or Con a possible one way.
It is certain that students will use AI to create term papers. So how should faculty respond so the grades don’t become even more meaningless than they already are? Require that the student submit to an oral examination where the faculty member can probe the depth of the student’s understanding of the material.
"Than they already are" is key. With rampant grade inflation it's unclear of the effect this program will have on the system—but it is clear (to me, at least) of what it will do in the long run to people who use it.
Can't see that working. For one thing it would be too resource intensive for a lot of universities (I teach a course with 700 students, and there are only 8 of us on the teaching team. It's already a struggle to get all their papers marked in time and do 1-1 plagiarism interviews)
Supervised hand written exams could mitigate the problem somewhat (and is how everyone was assessed until relatively recently, in the UK at least) But personally I think we need a more radical re-think about the purpose of university education and what we're actually attempting to achieve with assessments. Part of me thinks we should just stop giving out humanities degrees. Students can get a certificate of attendance and we can let employers worry about how they will distinguish between candidates for entry-level 'graduate' positions.
Every employer should test every applicant for basic skills and the ones needed for their Employment. We stopped hiring college graduates, and hired good HS students. That could read and write, with a good “attitudes”, as interns, then educated them, as needed. Great results !
Pete said, “Our present system cannot survive this.” I would modify that: “No education system can survive this, even new and innovative systems, like University of Austin.”
The question I would have asked Jozef Gherman is: “Is it possible to cheat in school and, if so, please give me an example of cheating?”
I wanted to vomit listening to that podcast today. The deep cynicism and amorality of Gherman is disturbing. His anti-intellectualism reminded me of Sam Bankman-Fried, who said about books: “I'm very skeptical of books. I don't want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. I think, if you wrote a book, you fucked up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post." My ability to think clearer has definitely been sharpened by years of reading and discussing — and occasionally writing about — philosophy. It’s often difficult work but it’s so rewarding. For Gherman, if you have to write a paper, the only objective would be to deliver (an AI-generated) paper. Learning is irrelevant. But learning is not irrelevant.
I appreciate the willingness to engage on the question of AI. Definitely one of the more important discussions of our time. One question I think you should've asked him was about AI hallucinations and things of that nature.
For instance, I heard about some lawyers, one in the US and another in Canada who used ChatGPT to collect citations for an argument they made in court. What they didn't check though was the validity of the citations. As a result, the judge noticed that several of the cases cited didn't exist. Apparently ChatGPT invented the citations out of whole cloth because it didn't know that you're not allowed to invent legal cases. The lawyers ended up going to jail for fraud.
So I think any discussions of AI should look at that as a problem. If you get a chance to speak to him again, you should ask him about what percentage of the citations being generated might be doing things like that. Not necessarily against people using these technologies, but we should be sure they work properly.
Absolutely can do. Thanks
Have AI write a set of 3-5 questions , for each student, on each of the different written Papers using the paper as written. W/O using any of its content. Use AI to beat its own system.
Do In class debating to teach. Break a large class into groups of 6 3 against 3 graded by there pears. This is how scientist learn, on notes Speaking skills and and debate content. Pro or Con a possible one way.
It is certain that students will use AI to create term papers. So how should faculty respond so the grades don’t become even more meaningless than they already are? Require that the student submit to an oral examination where the faculty member can probe the depth of the student’s understanding of the material.
"Than they already are" is key. With rampant grade inflation it's unclear of the effect this program will have on the system—but it is clear (to me, at least) of what it will do in the long run to people who use it.
Can't see that working. For one thing it would be too resource intensive for a lot of universities (I teach a course with 700 students, and there are only 8 of us on the teaching team. It's already a struggle to get all their papers marked in time and do 1-1 plagiarism interviews)
Supervised hand written exams could mitigate the problem somewhat (and is how everyone was assessed until relatively recently, in the UK at least) But personally I think we need a more radical re-think about the purpose of university education and what we're actually attempting to achieve with assessments. Part of me thinks we should just stop giving out humanities degrees. Students can get a certificate of attendance and we can let employers worry about how they will distinguish between candidates for entry-level 'graduate' positions.
Every employer should test every applicant for basic skills and the ones needed for their Employment. We stopped hiring college graduates, and hired good HS students. That could read and write, with a good “attitudes”, as interns, then educated them, as needed. Great results !
I've heard this from many people. Also, managers have told me they no longer hire graduates from the top US universities.