[HN Gopher] Teaching with AI ___________________________________________________________________ Teaching with AI Author : todsacerdoti Score : 245 points Date : 2023-08-31 17:00 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (openai.com) (TXT) w3m dump (openai.com) | jjcm wrote: | I've personally found AI to be a great help whenever I'm diving | into a topic that I'm less familiar with. Recently I used it to | help me prep for an interview as well. My partner uses it to help | explain STEM concepts that she didn't cover in her schooling. | | I do wonder how far away we are from an actual Young Lady's | Illustrated Primer. Three years ago I'd say we were 50 years | away. Now it feels more like 10. | shepardrtc wrote: | The same for me, I love it for this sort of thing. I can bounce | ideas off of it and it'll give me a solid response without | getting tired of my questioning. And it'll explain in detail | why I'm wrong. I really can't express how useful this is for my | style of learning - I like to take things apart and figure out | how they go back together. | jeremyjh wrote: | > Three years ago I'd say we were 50 years away. Now it feels | more like 10. | | I think those agents could actually reason though. LLMs do not | do any reasoning. They produce plausibly reasonable text. | yoyohello13 wrote: | I just don't know about this. I also find it answers great when | I'm not familiar with a topic. However, when I am familiar with | a topic I find all sorts of inconsistencies or wrong facts. I'm | concerned the same inconsistencies are there in the topics I'm | not familiar with, I just don't know enough about the subject | to spot them. | azertykeys wrote: | Anecdotally, my friend who's just starting out teaching high | school physics has used ChatGPT to generate worksheet questions | with mixed results, having to throw out the majority of what it | generates, but still saving time overall | pixl97 wrote: | Just asking it to make up 10 question isn't a great way of | doing it most of the time. | | It turns out making a single question really is a bunch of | different questions in itself. You have to ask on each question | "How can this be misinterpreted", "Can the question be written | better", "Is this a challenging question that actually causes a | person to learn". | | A lot of human generated question are just confusing hot | garbage in and of themselves. Quite often we encode cultural | biases in the questions. Or, if a person actually knows about | the topic they can get the question wrong, based if they are | only supposed to formulate the answer based on the paragraph | shown to the user. | | The AI Explained channel on youtube just had an episode about | this in relation to the tests we're giving AI. Turns out a lot | of the questions just suck. | MostlyStable wrote: | Surprised not to see any discussion here of Khanmigo[0], which I | believe has been using GPT-4 as a tutor for quite a while now (in | a beta form). It's been long enough that I've actually been | (idly) trying to find any efficacy data. I'm sure that by now | Khan academy has it, but I haven't seen them release it anywhere. | | The famous tutoring 2-sigma result (referenced elsewhere in the | comments), only took place over 6 weeks of learning, and Khanmigo | should have over 6 months (I believe) of data by this point | | [0]https://www.khanacademy.org/khan-labs | rcarr wrote: | I don't understand why they've made it US only during the beta | period, seems like a weird decision. | j_gravestein wrote: | Finally OpenAI admits AI detectors are useless. | jheriko wrote: | [flagged] | dtnewman wrote: | I built a chrome plugin called Revision History [1] that I | released about 2.5 weeks ago, so I've been talking to a good | number of educators about this recently. I'd say the majority of | teachers are terrified of AI, because it means that they have to | completely change how they teach with only a few months' notice. | It's not easy to change your lesson plans or assignment | structures that quickly and it'll take time to see where this all | lands. | | Some teachers are looking for ways _not to adapt_ , which is why | there's a surge of interest in AI detection (which doesn't work | well), but the sharpest educators I talk to are cognizant of the | fact that there is no going back. So the plan is to incorporate | AI into their curriculum and try to make assignments more "AI | proof". This means more in-class work (e.g., the "flipped | classroom" model [2]). Others are looking for ways to encourage | students to use AI on assignments, but to revise and annotate | what AI generates for them (this is what I am marketing my plugin | for). Either way, it's going to be very rough over the next few | years as educators scramble to keep us with a monstrous change | that came about practically overnight. | | [1] https://www.revisionhistory.com. The plugin helps teachers | see the students' process for drafting papers, unlike many than | other plugins that are trying to be "AI detectors". | | [2] https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/flipped- | classrooms#:~:text=A%2.... | nomel wrote: | > because it means that they have to completely change how they | teach with only a few months' notice | | Why? Doesn't it only mean they need to change how they _test_ | understanding? | Wowfunhappy wrote: | I have to say, I think I would have _hated_ this growing up. I | have a tendency to become emotionally-invested in the quality | of my writing, and I don 't like people seeing it in a state I | don't consider presentable. | | Maybe this tool would have forced me to get over that, I don't | know. | WhiteSabbath wrote: | Never know until you try | all2 wrote: | I had a college professor (English 101) tell the class on the | first day, "You're going to learn how to mutilate and kill | your babies." He was brutal in draft reviews, but he pushed | me to learn the process of drafting and writing. I produced | work in that class that I didn't think I was capable of. | dtnewman wrote: | Thank you for the feedback. My wife feels this way as well. | It's good to hear perspectives on it. | moffkalast wrote: | The fact that homework has become so prevalent that it takes | more than an hour each day (on top of already a full time job's | worth of classes) is a crime against childhood anyway, good | riddance. | TillE wrote: | Amen. I did great in school, except I _hated_ homework from a | very early age onwards. Tedious crap I already understood. | | The occasional take-home project is probably fine, but | otherwise let school be school, and leave it at that. | wudangmonk wrote: | I was frustated with the sheer amount of essays I was helping | out my nephew with. It felt like every single week he had an | essay from multiple classes, and it was always the same b.s | for every single one. I just couldn't see the point of having | to do so many of the same type of "research" assignment over | and over again. | | When chatgpt beta first became available I was overjoyed, it | worked wonders. It worked so well that I figured teachers | would have to let go of the essay crutch they had been | relying on so much. | AuryGlenz wrote: | My high school experience was largely teachers mentally | assuming that their homework was the only homework we were | assigned, and not realizing that the time we'd need to | spend on all of it was 6 or 7 times what they personally | did. | | I had one teacher assign four separate (essentially busy- | work) assignments over Christmas break. Ridiculous. | Workaccount2 wrote: | I can't help but feel that people are completely missing the | forest for the trees with AI and education. Which isn't | particularly surprising when you realize most people haven't | ever made the connection that the primary point of education is | to make effective economic contributors in your society, rather | than just being something you do because it's just what we do. | | We are going to use powerful AI to teach kids to do jobs that | AI will almost certainly do better in 10-20 years? | | Like I get that there is a notion of "What else are we supposed | to do?", but it still just feels so silly and futile to go | along with. Like "Lets use AI to teach kids how to | program!"....uhhh, the writing is on the wall | spion wrote: | Its not certain we'll get to that point, and if we do we'll | probably need to rethink society as a whole. We have a lot of | training data on human knowledge, discussion and Q&A, but | very little on humans actually working and going through | their thought process, which I suspect is why projects like | AutoGPT aren't really that good [1]. | | [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/AutoGPT/comments/13z5z3a/autogp | t_is... | | Relatively high fidelity and public data for some domains | does exist, however (think all github commits, issues, | discussions and pull requests as a whole). For those domains, | it indeed might be only a matter of time. | earthboundkid wrote: | It's been so long since calculators hit that I guess we all | forgot what that was like, but Wolfram Alpha can solve all of | the problems in a typical math textbook. Now writing based | classes have the same problems, but the solutions are pretty | similar: | | - Make kids show their work (outlines, revision histories) | | - Retool to focus on the things where the tools can't do all | the work (proofs, diagrams, word problems for math; research, | note gathering, synthesizing for writing) | | - After kids learn the basics, incorporate the tools into the | class in a semi-realistic way (using a TI-whatever in the | last years of high school math education) | loandbehold wrote: | ChatGPT can also "show work". Requiring students to show | work doesn't prevent cheating. | throwuwu wrote: | Show work in the context of chatgpt means show each | prompt and response and any edits or collation that you | performed. | redox99 wrote: | > Wolfram Alpha can solve all of the problems in a typical | math textbook | | I mostly disagree (and I used WolframAlpha thoroughly | during my engineering education). Wolfram can solve well | encapsulated tasks (solve for X, find the integral, etc). | Even then often it gives you a huge expression, whereas | doing it by hand you can achieve a much simpler expression. | | It doesn't really handle complex problems, at least like | the ones you'd find in a college level math or physics | course. It can be a tool for solving certain steps within | those problems (like a calculator), but you can't plug the | whole thing into Wolfram and get an answer. | | GPT4 is kinda OK at this, like 50%+ success rate probably, | highly dependent on how common the problem is. | danenania wrote: | "We are going to use powerful AI to teach kids to do jobs | that AI will almost certainly do better in 10-20 years?" | | I think understanding how to work well with AI and what its | limitations are will be helpful regardless of what the | outcome is. | | Even if silicon brains achieve AGI or super-intelligence, I | think it's highly unlikely that they will supersede | biological brains along every dimension. Biological brains | use physical processes that we have very little understanding | of, and so they will likely not be possible to fully mimic in | the foreseeable future even with AGI. We don't know exactly | how we'll fit in and be able to continue being useful in the | hypothetical AGI/super-intelligence scenario, but I think | it's almost certain there will be gaps of various kinds that | will require human brains to be in the loop to get the best | results. | | And even if we _do_ assume that humans get superseded in | every conceivable way, AGI does not imply infinite capacity, | and work is not zero sum. Even if AI completely takes over | for all the most important problems (for some definition of | important), there will always be problems left over. | | Right now, just because you aren't the best gardener in the | world (or even if you're one of the worst), that doesn't mean | you couldn't make the area around where you live greener and | more beautiful if you spent a few months on it. There is | always some contribution you can make to making life better. | isaacremuant wrote: | > make effective economic contributors in your society, | rather than just being something you do because it's just | what we do. | | That's your utilitarian take that would eliminate many things | you would consider superfluous. Social sciences, history, | art, useful personal skills that might not be directly to the | economy (like home related stuff or questioning authority) | | It should be about empowering citizens in many ways | regardless of how much they'll end up contributing to | society. As for historical examples, women and wealthy people | who studied and couldn't or didn't need to work still | studied. | | If you subscribe to the purely resource exploitation view, | you end up on the road to optimize for the elites in power | through lobbying and corporate manipulation. | | Having a population that thinks for themselves may actually | lead to more unrest and economic uncertainty of all the KPIs | that corporations usually love. | | Of course, corps will want education to be a specialized | training ground for future human resource exploitation and | govs might want to create voters for their party (or nation | build through ideology and principles) but just because | either might get their way to a hig degree doesn't mean that | "the primary purpose" is what they get away with. | bbor wrote: | The purpose of education is not labor preparation :) | Workaccount2 wrote: | It absolutely, unequivocally is. People can romanticize it | anyway they want, but formal education is very different | than religion camp, painting class, or spiritual retreat | training. | | I feel for people who don't get this or perhaps never | contemplated it, but the system is designed to breed good | workers and sort them into bins. And its not a bad thing | either. Sure there are non-economic self contained | benefits, but those are perks, not purposes. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I think, and this does not directly contradict your post, | because I do think you are not far off, but formal | education is supposed to help a person find their place | in society. Not everyone becomes plumber, electrician, | lawyer, mba, or engineer. Some become artists, activists | or, heavens forfend, politicians. | sanderjd wrote: | It absolutely, unequivocally, is _one_ of the reasons | universal education to a general level is a valuable | investment for a society. | | But it is not the _only_ reason, or (in my view) even the | most important reason. | | Maybe before assuming people haven't contemplated what | you're saying, you could try to contemplate what else | general education might be buying us. Maybe by imagining | how it would look if school was actually just job | training starting in elementary school, rather than | covering all these other things. | lewhoo wrote: | I share your view on this. I guess it all hinges on | whether AGI is possible and if so then how fast is it | coming. If we won't achieve AGI then education is still | necessary to push knowledge further and since we don't | know who is going to achieve this it makes sense (right | now) to still push education for all as social | obligation. | [deleted] | saint_fiasco wrote: | It is one important purpose, but education has lots of | stakeholders who each have their own purposes. | | The students want to learn things and socialize with | peers. | | Teachers want to teach, earn a living, get respect of | society. | | Parents want their children to be taught, but also want | their kids to be taken care of by other adults so they | can go to work in peace. Poorer parents in particular | also need their kids to be fed and sometimes schools have | to do that too. | | Governments want an educated citizenry that is | productive, pays taxes, knows the basics of law, civics | and so on. They also want to monitor and protect | unfortunate children who have bad parents. | | If schools only had one purpose you wouldn't see the | stakeholders fight each other so often. But in reality | parents fight governments over the curriculum, students | fight teachers over the amount of work, teachers fight | government/parents over their wage and so on. | cheonic7394 wrote: | > The students want to learn things and socialize with | peers. | | No. Students want to socialize with peers or play | sports/video games. Not learn. | | > Teachers want to teach, earn a living, get respect of | society. | | This is correct | | > Parents want their children to be taught, but also want | their kids to be taken care of by other adults so they | can go to work in peace. Poorer parents in particular | also need their kids to be fed and sometimes schools have | to do that too. | | Also correct. Parents want schools to be daycare, or for | elite families, schools are networking opportunities | | > Governments want an educated citizenry that is | productive, pays taxes, knows the basics of law, civics | and so on. They also want to monitor and protect | unfortunate children who have bad parents. | | Correct. But a population can be productive while being | largely uneducated (see China) | | But despite the different priorities of the groups, "the | student learning", is not one of them | conception wrote: | > No. Students want to socialize with peers or play | sports/video games. Not learn. | | This is frightfully incorrect. Students definitely love | to learn. They do not like to be stuffed in a chair and | lectured at and forced to do rote activities. But who | does? | OkayPhysicist wrote: | > But a population can be productive while being largely | uneducated (see China) | | China's a terrible example in trying to support your | point. If the pitch is "education makes better workers" | then you shouldn't be looking at GDP, you should be | looking at GDP per capita, aka "Are the workers more | productive in more educated countries?". And China has a | terrible GDP per capita. It ranks 64th in the world to | the US's 7th. Applying slightly more rigorous comparison | across the world, there's a clear correlation between | GDP/capita and average educational attainment. | | And you have a very dismal view of students. In my area, | at least at the honors level, students were pretty well | engaged in learning. Now, that was mostly in order to get | into good colleges and appease their parents' desire for | them to learn, but they definitely were eager to have the | knowledge that was being taught. By the time you get to | college, a fair fraction of the students are truly | engaged with the material for the material's sake. Even | moreso in degrees that aren't glorified trade school | programs. | sanderjd wrote: | I don't think the population of China is "largely | uneducated" in the sense that began this thread. It is | not rare for Chinese kids to go to school, and those | schools are not only used for job training. | all2 wrote: | And most of that fighting goes away when parents assume | the responsibility of teaching their own children. This | particular responsibility is presently only available to | those who build their lives around the idea of a nuclear | family and home schooling. I used to think that one had | to achieve some middle/upper class financial status to | make this viable (and having money does make this | easier), but I've seen poor families manage home | schooling quite well. This requires community (a church | with others who are home schooling, a home school co-op) | because the kiddos will age out of your ability to teach | rather quickly (10-12 and suddenly they're doing math you | haven't touched in 2 decades, or more involved history or | literature that the average parent may not be equipped to | teach well, or electives that fall outside the experience | of the parents). | sanderjd wrote: | > _And most of that fighting goes away when parents | assume the responsibility of teaching their own | children._ | | No, because you've forgotten one of the important | stakeholders here, which is society at large, which has a | interest in ensuring a general level of shared education. | Which once again results in fighting, as parents who are | teaching their own children run up against government | requirements that they may not agree with. | tivert wrote: | >> The purpose of education is not labor preparation :) | | > It absolutely, unequivocally is. People can romanticize | it anyway they want, but formal education is very | different than religion camp, painting class, or | spiritual retreat training. | | No it isn't "absolutely, unequivocally." What _specific_ | formal education are you talking about? | | Especially in the past, but continuing somewhat into the | present-day, formal education has mainly been about | _enculturation_ , and not "labor preparation." That can | seen clearly by the former emphasis on dead classical | languages and the continued (though lessened) emphasis on | literature and similar subjects. There's zero value in | reading Shakespeare or Lord of the Flies from a "labor | preparation" standpoint. | | However, I do see a modern trend where many people are so | degraded by economics that they have trouble perceiving | or thinking about anything except through the lens of | economics or some economics-adjacent subject. | ifyoubuildit wrote: | > There's zero value in reading Shakespeare or Lord of | the Flies from a "labor preparation" standpoint. | | There is zero labor prep value in learning to extract | information from text (that you possibly have no interest | in reading)? | Workaccount2 wrote: | Enculturation is just to make it so people who otherwise | cannot bear much economic fruit can at least not be | producing negative value. Studying the classics, if | nothing else, should at least produce a well adjusted | human. That in and of itself has value. | | But those are the fringes of the education system. The | core focus is on producing high value citizens that will | produce far more than they take. This is abundantly clear | if you look at the social valuations of high caliber | students with fruitful degrees. | lemmsjid wrote: | One of the initial proponents of public education in | America, Horace Mann, saw education in a two pronged | manner. | | First, a functional democracy requires that the | citizenship be well informed and capable of critical | thinking: "A republican form of government, without | intelligence in the people, must be, on a vast scale, | what a mad-house, without superintendent or keepers, | would be on a small one." | | He also saw the economic side, saying that education was | an equalizer for people in terms of helping them to reach | their full potential. | | I quite agree with his assessment. In a system where | everyone has a vote, it becomes quite important that | everyone have a sense of things that extends beyond their | career vocation. His imagery of an uneducated republic | being a madhouse makes much sense from this perspective. | | Insofar as we have given up any optimism about the | democratic enterprise, then certainly we could look at | education as purely to put people into economic bins, but | at least in my own public school education in the US, | every student did get significant doses of math, history, | science, etc., outside of their expected career | direction. | | This to me suggests that there is a tension, not fully | resolved and HOPEFULLY never fully resolved, between | education-for-economics and education-for-democracy. I | think it's quite pessimistic though to give up the ghost | on the education-for-democracy aspect. | kaibee wrote: | > It absolutely, unequivocally is. | | This is a category error. You're talking about the | education system as though it was designed from accurate | first principles towards a specific intended outcome. | Like, you can say that the absolute unequivocal purpose | of a nuclear reactor is to heat water. But when we're | looking at sociopolitical organizations, that have been | codified through various political forces over tens of | generations, through the demands of ever-shifting | stakeholders, etc this is not a useful framing. | | > but the system is designed to breed good workers and | sort them into bins. And its not a bad thing either. Sure | there are non-economic self contained benefits, but those | are perks, not purposes. | | I think a more accurate framing is that the system is | currently evolved into strongly emphasizing this mode of | behavior. | borroka wrote: | This is true, and it is puzzling how people think that | there are geniuses, evil or otherwise, who have planned | the educational system so as to achieve some sort of | results for the society at large that go beyond the | mundane. | | Where the mundane is keeping young people out of the | streets, maybe teach them arithmetic and some grammar. | And the leaders, that is, the teachers, want, most of the | time, just to bring home a salary, not funnel the masses | from schools to office desks or assembly lines. | bbor wrote: | Ok it's hard to say anything "absolute" about the purpose | of education since it's a philosophical/political stance | and not a physical phenomenon, but I appreciate your | cynicism. I see how the rich and powerful have shaped our | public education institutions, and agree that American | schools at least often push students into rote labor- | focused paths. | | That said, the discussion is about the purpose of | classrooms in a world of AI, and I think it's a good time | to remember the less economic purposes of education that | have always been there under the surface. I think few | teachers are more driven by bringing economic benefits to | their students than enriching/exciting/interesting them, | and secondary and post secondary education has always had | a huge variety of non-occupational courses, from ancient | history to obscure languages to nice math. | | Overall, I imagine we agree on the most important thing: | if education does end up changing immensely as AGI gains | footing, we should change it to be less economic | bheadmaster wrote: | Depends on who you ask. | | "Purpose" in an entirely subjective thing. | albumen wrote: | Workaccount2 beat me to it. But it's well documented, | e.g. https://qz.com/1314814/universal-education-was- | first-promote... | | "Much of this education, however, was not technical in | nature but social and moral. Workers who had always spent | their working days in a domestic setting, had to be | taught to follow orders, to respect the space and | property rights of others, be punctual, docile, and | sober. The early industrial capitalists spent a great | deal of effort and time in the social conditioning of | their labor force, especially in Sunday schools which | were designed to inculcate middle class values and | attitudes, so as to make the workers more susceptible to | the incentives that the factory needed." | bbor wrote: | I really take issue with describing this as some sort of | well documented absolute fact that education is about | labor. It isn't the 1850s! Just because capitalists | interested in skilled labor were "some of" the biggest | supporters of English public schools in the 1850s doesn't | mean we should forever commit our society to their | designs. | | From the Marxist paper backing that article: | England initiated a sequence of reforms in its education | system since the 1830s and literacy rates gradually | increased. The process was _initially motivated by a | variety of reasons_ such as religion, enlightenment, | social control, moral conformity, socio-political | stability, and military efficiency, as was the case in | other European countries (e.g., Germany, France, Holland, | Switzerland) that had supported public education much | earlier.15 However, in light of the modest demand for | skills and literacy by the capitalists, the level of | governmental support was rather small.16 In the | second phase of the Industrial Revolution, consistent | with the proposed hypothesis, the demand for skilled | labor in the growing industrial sector markedly increased | (Cipolla 1969 and Kirby 2003) and the proportion of | children aged 5 to 14 in primary schools increased from | 11% in 1855 to 25% in 1870 (Flora et al. (1983)).17 | | Sorry if I sound challenging or rude - just hurts my soul | to imagine people giving in to the capitalist's desire | for us to interpret our prison as a fact of nature | ctoth wrote: | Nah, POSIWID. | bheadmaster wrote: | Depends on how you define "purpose". | | To me it means "the reason why <person> does <thing>", so | the phrase "purpose of a system" doesn't make sense | without a particular human subject who's interacting with | the system. | jimhefferon wrote: | Certainly a major purpose. | vlark wrote: | It is today. It used to not be. Blame Reagan when he was | governor of California: | https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-day-the-purpose-of- | col... | taneem wrote: | It's hard to stare in the face of the abyss. | sanderjd wrote: | I'm glad I learned how to figure out the shape of a function, | even though graphing calculators were already a mature | technology at the time I was learning that (and had been even | more obsoleted by jupyter notebooks by the time I entered the | workforce). | | It's al very tricky to figure out what foundational knowledge | will be useful in 15 years (that's why we pay educators the | big bucks ... oh wait ...), but just because it's hard and | uncertain doesn't mean it isn't valuable to try to figure it | out. | sebzim4500 wrote: | >the primary point of education is to make effective economic | contributors in your society | | I see zero evidence that this is true. This is not the stated | nor revealed preference of a significant portion of the | population. | [deleted] | atomicUpdate wrote: | People don't spend thousands of dollars and spend years of | their lives to get a degree because the process is | inherently fun. The reason to go to college is so you can | get a good job that pays more than if you stopped at high | school. Same thing with getting a high school diploma | (though, less so). | | What more evidence than that do you need? | actionfromafar wrote: | I think you conflate economic contribution and good job | too much. They often don't overlap much. | geek_at wrote: | Good job! | | Btw your site is exposing the .git directory | https://www.revisionhistory.com/.git/config | | Might want to set a filter rule for that | imachine1980_ wrote: | there is any extension to do that or you manually do it, i | have adhd so this type of tools save y life, this happens to | me a few months back i kill the vm host and make new os, | maybe too overboard but i works. | geek_at wrote: | I'm using DotGit [1] which checks for .git and .env files | for every site you visit. You wouldn't believe the things I | randomly found (and reported) | | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dotgit/pampamgoih | g... | dtnewman wrote: | OMG... feedback like this is soooo helpful! Thank you. | Nothing concerning in the .git directory, but yeah, I | probably shouldn't be showing that. I will update my sync | process to exclude that. Thank you! | | Edit: should be fixed now :) | HellsMaddy wrote: | You were just being true to your name, by offering _your_ | revision history! | | On a more serious note, this is a great example of how to | handle a vulnerability report - fix it, change your | processes, and say thank you! (geek_at could probably have | done better by disclosing this in private first, though) | geek_at wrote: | I figured there wouldn't be any secrets in the git and | also if your site is on hacker news (or top of a comment | thread on hn) you are glued to it so I thought they'd fix | it fast | floydianspiral wrote: | Just wanted to say I had this _exact_ same idea a week ago and | was googling around to see if anyone had done this yet. I guess | I don't have to build it now haha. Hopefully you can sell this | to universities/the right people and make some headway on it! | dtnewman wrote: | There are a bunch that purport to do "AI detection" and a few | others that are similar to mine (and more coming, I'm sure), | but I like to think that mine is the most convenient to use | :) | vlark wrote: | How does your extension differ from Draftback?(https://chrome.g | oogle.com/webstore/detail/draftback/nnajoiem...) | | Just curious. | dtnewman wrote: | Not entirely different but built more specifically for | teachers, so that they get relevant information without | having to watch the video every time. Also, draftback doesn't | integrate with Google Classroom. | TechBro8615 wrote: | If you're not using the latest, best tools available to teach | your students - and if you're not teaching them about those | tools - then you are a bad teacher. Period. | | Language models should be introduced in classrooms because | they're a part of society now, and they're here to stay. Kids | should learn about them - how they work, where they came from, | how to use them - just like they should learn how to type or | send an email. | | It does remind me of my experience as a middle schooler in | 2002, when our class took a trip to the library, and the | librarian gave us a lesson on "how to use search engines | properly." In retrospect, the societal worry at the time was | about search engines replacing librarians, so it was perhaps | notable that this librarian had the humility to teach us how to | use her "replacement." Surely the same applies to teachers and | ChatGPT: a good teacher will not be worried about whatever | impact ChatGPT might have on them personally, but will instead | take the opportunity to teach their students about the new | horizons opened up by this technology. | | (The funny part of that seminar in the library was that the | lesson emphasized the need to construct efficient, keyword- | based queries, rather than asking natural language questions to | the search engine directly - but twenty years later we've come | full circle and now you actually can just ask your question to | the language models.) | [deleted] | grozmovoi wrote: | That's how I've been using it for a week now to clarify certain | concepts from computer science that I always had little | confidence in and it has been excellent. | theprivacydad wrote: | The main issue that is not addressed is that students need points | to pass their subjects and get a high school diploma. LLMs are a | magical shortcut to these points for many students, and therefore | very tempting to use, for a number of normal reasons (time- | shortage, laziness, fatigue, not comprehending, insecurity, | parental pressure, status, etc.). This is the current, urgent | problem with ChatGPT in schools that is not being addressed well. | | Anyone who has spent some time with ChatGPT knows that the 'show | your work' (plan, outline, draft, etc.) argument is moot, because | AI can retroactively produce all of these earlier drafts and | plans. | phalangion wrote: | I suspect it's not being addressed well because it's one of the | fundamental challenges of school in the first place. For many, | assessment and grades are the end goal, and any learning that | happens is secondary. | blueboo wrote: | The status quo is a miserable mess, but consider "assessment | and grades" is the best apparent evidence of ultimate- | goal-"learning". Is that not reasonable for people who pay | for education to ask for? | | If it is reasonable, then the problem is likely the form of | evidence and not its requirement se de | jorgemf wrote: | I think your argument is similar to the one we had with the | calculators and later with Internet. I think ChatGPT is another | tool. For sure there is going to be lazy people who use it and | won't learn anything, but it also sure it is going to be a | boost for so many people. We will adapt. | bloppe wrote: | Calculators solve problems that have exactly one correct | answer. You cannot plagiarize a calculator. They are easy to | incorporate into a math curriculum while ensuring that it | stays educationally valuable to the students. | | LLM's, the internet, even physical books all tend to deal | primarily with subjective matters that can be plagiarized. | They're not fundamentally different from each other; the more | advanced technologies like search engines or LLM's simply | make it easier to find relevant content that can be copied. | They actually remove the need for students to think for | themselves in a way calculators never did. LLM's just make it | _so easy_ to commit plagiarism that the system is starting to | break down. Plagiarism was always a problem, but it used to | be rare enough that the education system could sort-of | tolerate it. | argiopetech wrote: | I argue that calculators are overtly harmful to arithmetic | prowess. In summary, they atrophy mental arithmetic ability | and discourage practice of basic skills. | | It pains me (though that's my problem) to see people pull | out a calculator (worse, a phone) to solve e.g., a | multiplication of two single digit numbers. | bloppe wrote: | Sure, calculators made people worse at mental arithmetic, | but arithmetic is mechanical. It's helpful sometimes, but | it's not intellectually stimulating and it doesn't | require much intelligence. Mathematicians don't give a | shit about arithmetic. They're busy thinking about much | more important things. | | Synthesizing an original thesis, like what people are | supposed to do in writing essays, is totally different. | It's a fundamental life skill people will need in all | sorts of contexts, and using an LLM to do it for you | takes away your intellectual agency in a way that using a | calculator doesn't. | seydor wrote: | "Please teach our models how to replace you" | elashri wrote: | ChatGPT (and other LLMs) still cannot do (and probably never | will) well in any consistent manner in physics. I don't think | physics departments are worrying much about the AI. The only | thing that can help students in a more reliable way is some | coding projects. Which is okay because in most of these classes | (computational physics) students are encouraged to work together, | seek help and even ask on the internet (before ChatGPT...etc.) It | was always about how to explain and describe the thinking. AI (at | least in its current form) is very weak at the problem-solving | aspects and in understanding concepts. | | On the other hand, as non-native English speaker, it save me much | time into paraphrasing my poorly thoughts and writing that I | would need an hour to express in a good formal manner. It can | guide you in some aspects of coding tasks, introduce you to some | APIs ...etc. This is actually a good tool that I agree that a | good student (researcher) would use wisely to gain some knowledge | and save sometime. | | It will not help much with solving a cart on an inclined plane | with some friction and a pendulum hanging from the cart. No, it | will not be able to give you the normal modes. | | This is just a personal experience and opinion, though. It might | be completely different in other areas. | witherk wrote: | Really? Granted LLMs might be a little weaker in physics than | other areas. If someone figures out get LLMs to use a | mathmatica API, and train it some more I can imagine some rapid | progress. | tipsytoad wrote: | Really? The only reason that ChatGPT is more adept at coding | problems is because there is vastly more training data. There's | nothing fundamentally different between problem solving a | coding problem and physics problem. Like all the others before | it, I don't think this comment will age too well. | chaxor wrote: | You should really think about making statements like "AI will | probably never do X well". Many formal linguists made very | strong statements about the impossibility of (__insert feature | here__, such as pragmatic implicature) to be learned by AI, | which they are now being shown to be wrong. | | For instance, Miles Cranmers work on using GNNs for symbolic | regression is a start towards useful new discoveries in | physics. Transformers are just GNNs with a specific message | passing function and position embeddings. It's not hard to see | that either by a different architecture, augmentation, or | potentially even just more of the same, we can get to new | discoveries in physics with AI. The GNN symbolic regression | work is evidence that it's already happened. | | As for grounding knowledge in the LLMs we have exactly just | this moment (a rather short-sighted view) there is plenty of | interest and work in the area, for which I expect will be | addressed in a multitude of ways. It's ability with grounded | physics knowledge is not perfect, but it's _very good_ w.r.t. | the common knowledge of a human off the street. External | sources alone make it much better, and that 's just the | exceedingly short-sighted analysis of what we have today. | Alupis wrote: | I can't be the only one thinking, given how much ChatGPT gets | confidently wrong, that it's _way_ too early to be talking about | funneling this into classrooms? | | The internet is bursting with anecdotes of it getting basics | wrong. From dates and fictional citations, to basic math | questions... how on earth can this be a learning tool for those | who are not wise enough to understand the limitations? | | OpenAI's examples include making lesson plans, tutoring, etc. | Just like with self driving cars - too much too quick, and many | are not capable of understanding the limits or blindly trust the | system. | | ChatGPT isn't even a year old yet... | yieldcrv wrote: | Its probably the perfect time to be talking about it giving how | fast the advancements occur | | They probably wont be using that model for another year, while | people will be using that website for many years | Zetice wrote: | It doesn't get the kind of things taught in most classrooms | wrong in the way it gets business applications wrong, because | there's a (mostly) correct response that isn't going to vary a | ton from source to source. The weighting will always push its | responses towards the right answer, though in moments of | relative uncertainty I guess if you had the temperature turned | super high you might get some weird responses. | | It'll (mostly) always know about the Sherman Antitrust Act and | what precipitated its passage, for example. | | That said, OpenAI repeatedly suggests verifying responses and | says, "make it your own" which IMO includes spot checking for | correctness. | Alupis wrote: | > It doesn't get the kind of things taught in most classrooms | wrong in the way it gets business applications wrong, because | there's a (mostly) correct response that isn't going to vary | a ton from source to source. | | It's fabricated legal cases and invented citations to back up | it's statements. | | The issue is, it can be difficult to know when it's wrong | without putting in a lot of effort. Students won't put in the | effort, and that assuming they're even capable of understand | when/where it's wrong in the first place. | | Just like self driving cars - we can say "pay attention and | keep your hands on the wheel at all times"... but that's not | what everyone does and we've seen the consequences of that | already. | | We need to be careful here. This tech is new. ChatGPT hasn't | even existed (publicly) for a year. Getting it wrong and | going too fast has consequences. In the education space in | particular, those consequences can be profound. | Zetice wrote: | This is nothing at all like self driving cars; firstly the | risks are not even in the same ballpark, and secondly every | piece of advice given includes, "check the response | independently." It says nothing about a tool like this if | people choose to misuse it. | | At some point, using LLMs like ChatGPT recklessly is on the | user, not the tool. | [deleted] | spion wrote: | The internet is sampling the interesting samples, not | necessarily a realistic picture. | | I'd love to see a good research study on this that shows the | actual error rate as well as a comparison with other non-human | alternatives (e.g. googling, using textbook only, etc) as well | as possibly human (personal tutor, group instructor, ...) | Alupis wrote: | > The internet is sampling the interesting samples, not | necessarily a realistic picture. | | A tutor is expected to know the subject and guide the | student. If, say, 10% of the time it guides the student into | a false understanding, the damages are significant. It's very | hard to unlearn something, particularly when you have | confidence you know it well. | | My personal adventures with ChatGPT are probably close to a | 50% success rate. It gets some stuff entirely wrong, a lot of | stuff non-obviously wrong, and even more stuff subtly wrong - | and it's up to you to be knowledgeable enough to wade through | the BS. Students, learning a subject in school are by | definition not knowledgeable enough to discern confident BS | from correctness. | | Will ChatGPT be useful in the future? Yes, almost certainly. | But let's not rush this and get it very wrong. The | consequences can be staggering in the education space - | children or adults. | spion wrote: | I'm getting north of 95% success with GPT4, and while a | dedicated tutor or a group instructor would definitely be | better, none of the other non-human alternatives come | close. Searching the internet can also lead to wrong | information and false understanding - all self-directed | methods have this pitfall. | | Still - a well designed study will give us a much better | picture of where we actually are. I think that would be | extremely valuable. | Der_Einzige wrote: | The reality is that effective LLMs, combined with some kind of | knowledge retrieval, are coming close to becoming the idealized | individual tutor. This is also a daily reminder that studies show | that individual tutoring is objectively the best way to educate | people: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem | swyx wrote: | [deleted because dont want to be drawn into flamewar] | maxbond wrote: | > [deleted because don't want to be drawn into flamewar] | | Good on you. I'm not confident I would have the restraint. | empath-nirvana wrote: | Chatgpt does tutoring just fine, i've had it draw up a lesson | plan for me and execute with hardly any special prompt | engineering at all, just sort of like: "Please tutor me on | french adverbs, please start by asking me a few questions to | find out what I already know," and it dialed in fairly well | to my level. | BoorishBears wrote: | [flagged] | gojomo wrote: | As parent deleted, which tweet was being referenced? | BoorishBears wrote: | https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1697121327143150004 | | There was no need to delete except being so trivially | shown to be wrong, I didn't chase them to twitter or | something. | | But that's the MO for the tech grifter: | | - you herd the few people who are unsure and will listen | to any confident voice | | - the people who know the most about <insert tech> tend | to not like that, but when the herd is small just defer | to their confrontations with humility and grace, and use | that show of virtue to continue herding | | - the more people you herd, the easier it is to get | incrementally smarter people to follow: We're all subject | to certain blindspots in a large enough crowd | | - the more people who follow someone who's clearly wrong, | the more annoyed people who are knowledgeable about | <insert tech> will get about the grifter | | - This makes each future confrontation more heated, so | now the heated nature of the confrontation is | justification to disengage without deferring. Just be | confidence and continue herding | | - rinse and repeat until people who don't follow the | grifter gospel are a minority. | | -- | | The actual VC dollars start chasing whatever story their | ilk has weaved by then. And eventually it all collapses | because there was no intellectual underlying: just self- | enrichment. | | That realization from the crowd exhausts any good will | that was left for <insert tech> and the grifters move on | to the next bubble. | gojomo wrote: | Thanks for ref! | | I share your frustration at those who confidently & | prematurely write-off rapidly-changing AI tech based on | dated examples, cherry-picked anecdotes from the | unskilled, & zero extrapolation based on momentum. They | do a a double-disservice to those who trust them: 1st, by | discouraging beneficial work on ripe, solvable | challenges, and 2nd, encouraging a complacency about | rapid new capabilities that may leave vulnerable people | at the mercy of others who were better prepared. | | But, not being familiar with the account in question, I | don't see those attitudes in that tweet. It seems more an | assessment "no one has quite nailed this yet" than | defeatism over whether it's possible. | BoorishBears wrote: | The tweet was just a reference in their comment: | | > i have yet to see any ai system properly implement | individual level-adjusting tutoring. i suspect because | the LLM needs a proper theory of mind | (https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1697121327143150004) | before you can put this to practice. | | But to be perfectly transparent, I'd _never_ respond so | harshly to someone for just that tweet, or even that | comment. | | Instead it's the fact they're currently a synecdoche for | the crypto-ization of AI. This person doesn't usually | dismiss AI, instead they heavily amplify the least | helpful interpretations of it. | | _ | | This is one of the largest voices behind the new "the | rise of the AI engineer" movement in which this author | specifically claimed researchers were now obsolete to AI | _due to the tooling they built_ : | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36538423 | | Like, I get wanting to make money by capturing value as | much as the next person... but basing an entire brand on | declaring that the people who are enabling your value | proposition are irrelevant _just to create a name for | yourself_ is pointlessly distasteful. | | The only thing he gained by saying researchers don't | matter and understanding Attention doesn't matter is | exactly I described above: a wild opinion that attracted | the unsure, pissed off the knowledgeable, and served as a | wedge that he could then carve out increasingly large | slices of the pie for himself with. | | Fast forward 2 months and now the process has done its | thing, the "AI engineer" conference is being sponsored by | the research driven orgs because they don't want to be on | the wrong side of the steamroller. | minimaxir wrote: | You are replying to swyx. | BoorishBears wrote: | Thank you, updated indirect references to direct: I know | it's un-HN but _Jesus christ_ am I tired of hearing this | person 's garbage quoted ad nauseam like a gospel | maxbond wrote: | Jeez bro. This is a pretty intense reaction to a lukewarm | and reasonable take. Personally I appreciate an "AI | influencer" being down to earth and being willing to say | that the technology isn't magic, amidst a huge amount of | hype. If you think people are parroting swyx uncritically | - that's hardly a criticism of swyx, is it? | | I think you should keep reflecting on your realization | about how people got swept up in the cryptoasset hype. | You can believe this technology is promising and will | improve dramatically without being a fanatic. You can | disagree without going for the jugular. | rvz wrote: | Who? | | It has been known that LLMs cannot reason transparently | nor can these black-boxes explain themselves without | regurgitating and rewording their sentences to sound | intelligent, but instead are confident sophists no matter | what random anyone tells you otherwise. | | EDIT: This is the context before it was deleted by the | grandparent comment: | | >> i have yet to see any ai system properly implement | individual level-adjusting tutoring. i suspect because | the LLM needs a proper theory of mind | (https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1697121327143150004) | before you can put this to practice. | | My point still stands. | gojomo wrote: | Emphatic assertions "it has been known" are anti- | convincing. | BoorishBears wrote: | You're showing why I'm so annoyed by this perfectly! | | It's malicious to rope theory of mind into justifying | that point because it's _just wrong enough_. | | If the reader doesn't think deeply about why on earth you | would _ever_ to rope theory of mind into this, your brain | will happily go down the stochastic parrot route: | | "How can it have theory of mind, theory of mind is | understanding emotions outside of your own, the LLM has | no emotions" | | But that's a complete nerdsnipe. | | -- | | If instead you distrust this person's underlying | motivations to not be genuine intellectual curiosity, but | rather to present a statement that is easily agreed to | even at the cost of being wrong... you examine that | comment at a higher level: | | What is theory of mind adding here besides triggering | your typical engineer's well established "LLMs are over- | anthropomorphized" response? Even in psychology it's a | hairy non-universally accepted or agreed upon concept! | | Theory of mind gives two things at the highest level: | | inward regulation: which is nonsensical for the LLM, you | can tell it what emotion it's outputting as, it does not | need theory of mind to act angry | | outward recognition: we've let computers do this with | linear algebra for over 2 decades. It's what 5 of the | largest companies in technology are built on... | | -- | | Commentary like that accounts is built on being _just | wrong enough_ : | | You calmly state wild opinions. There are people who want | to agree with any calm voice because they're seeking | guidance in the storm of <insert hype cycle>. They invent | a foothold in your wild statement, some sliver of truth | they can squint and maybe almost make out. | | Then you gain a following, which then starts to add a | social aspect: If I don't get it but this is a figure | head, I must be looking it wrong. Now people are | squinting harder. | | This repeats itself until everyone has their eyes closed | following someone who has never actually said anything | with any intention other than advancing their own | influence. | | They don't care how many useful ideas die along the way, | there's no intellectual curiosity to entice them to even | stumble upon something more meaningful, it's just | draining the energy out of what should be a truly | rewarding time for self-thinking. | Madmallard wrote: | personal tutoring and coaching is basically mandatory for | mastery. name a professional concert pianist or athlete who | doesn't have one. I act as personal tutor for comp sci students | and I'm envious of them. I didn't have one and I think it | really limited my growth. | binarymax wrote: | My sister (who is a middle school teacher) and I developed a real | training program for teachers, and this "guide" from OpenAI is | quite underwhelming. It doesn't address 90% of the problems | teachers actually face with AI...this is mostly a brochure on how | to use ChatGPT to get info. | | If you are a teacher or know a teacher who is struggling to adapt | this school year, I'd be honored to speak with them and see if we | can help. | miketery wrote: | Can you share some of the outline or problems your guide | solves? | binarymax wrote: | Sure thing! https://max.io/teacher-training.html | rmbyrro wrote: | I thought it gives good guidance. | | Of course it's not a 4-hour in-person workshop, like what | you're proposing. But it already adds positive value. | | It covers a good amount of the topics your course covers, I | think. Introductory-level, perhaps, but it's a start. | | Honestly? I don't understand your comment - I read as negative | towards OpenAI (am I wrong?) | | I'd expect someone like you to praise OpenAI's willingness to | contribute in this space. | chankstein38 wrote: | Yeah I read this and was repeatedly surprised and thankful | they finally put some of these things in writing. That | section about whether or not detectors work is going to be | hugely helpful to students wrongly accused of using AI to | generate their essays or something. Take that page and show | it to your teacher "Look! The publisher of the thing says | those detectors aren't accurate!" | | I'm with you the parent seems more like an ad and negativity | towards OpenAI. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | << I'd expect someone like you to praise OpenAI's willingness | to contribute in this space. | | Why would you assume OP position in this case? There are | multiple valid, albeit unstated reasons, why the company in | question may not be the best vessel for those efforts. And, | just to make sure that is not left unsaid, it is not like | openAI is doing it for altruistic reason. | | I do agree that it is not a bad starting material, but I | think you will agree that it is clearly not targeted at group | that gathers at HN. | [deleted] | halflings wrote: | This looks like a promotional comment to sell some kind of paid | "AI Training" [1], doesn't address anything in the linked | article. | | [1] https://max.io/teacher-training.html | qwertox wrote: | Oh, I think I just fell for it. I was asking them if they | could share their knowledge... | josh-sematic wrote: | Thanks for the detective work! On the one hand, I don't have | a problem with someone mentioning a helpful resource they | developed in a relevant thread, even if it's paid. But it | would be more honest to disclose that's what's being offered | rather than disguising it as an offer of a free resource. | fsloth wrote: | The prompt 4 "AI teacher" is pretty good for learning group | theory at least. (Just trying it right now on ChatGPT 4.0) | rmbyrro wrote: | I found lots of good value in their publication as well. | | Especially for teachers, who I believe (most at least) have | no clue about prompt engineering and how to talk to an LLM. | fsloth wrote: | IMO 'Prompt engineering' is an implication that the LLM:s | are really immature technology. There is no intrinsic value | in prompt engineering - it's ok to wait a bit until LLM:s | get a proper product shell you don't need to walk on | eggshells over. I would not promote LLM:s as production | ready offerings until this aspect becomes better. | | Using an LLM is like having a therapy session - where you | the user are the therapist. Humans should not need to learn | en masse become AI therapists, that's a the inverse of what | should happen :D | qwertox wrote: | I agree, most don't even know they can tell it how to | behave. | westurner wrote: | TIL about "CoderMindz Game for AI Learners! NBC Featured: First | Ever Board Game for Boys and Girls Age 6+. Teaches Artificial | Intelligence and Computer Programming Through Fun Robot and | Neural Adventure!" https://www.codermindz.com/ | https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07FTG78C3/ | | Codermindz AI Curriculum: https://www.codermindz.com/stem- | school/ | | https://K12CS.org K12 CS Curriculum (and code.org, and | Khanmigo,) SHOULD/MUST incorporate AI SAFETY and Ethics | curricula. | | A Jupyter-book of autogradeable notebooks (for AI SAFETY first, | ML, AutoML, AGI,) would be a great resource. | | jupyter-edx-grader-xblock | https://github.com/ibleducation/jupyter-edx-grader-xblock , | Otter-Grader https://otter-grader.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ , | JupyterLite because Chromebooks | | What are some additional K12 CS/AI and QIS Curricula resources? | qwertox wrote: | > If you are a teacher or know a teacher who is struggling to | adapt this school year, I'd be honored to speak with them and | see if we can help. | | This is a worldwide issue. | | I think it's great what you two did, maybe it would be more | effective if you did a small article or video on it? | | Many would be honored to be able to get help from your | insights, it's needed. I see how teachers are struggling in | Germany, while they are still open to embrace this technology. | binarymax wrote: | Thanks for the kind words and I agree! | | I prefer to do the teacher training workshop in person for | various reasons, but we have considered recording it. | | I've also given 2 open lectures at different libraries (and | have been asked to do more) for the general public. I should | certainly record that, since it's more general audience. | [deleted] | nirmel wrote: | I made https://anylearn.ai, an education app built on OpenAI. if | you click the settings icon, then the teach tab, it will generate | a teaching guide on any topic. Try it! | burkaman wrote: | I put in "8th grade french" and it gave me a guide on how to | develop a teaching guide, not the teaching guide itself. Like | "Step 4: Prepare instructional materials", "Step 5: sequence | the lesson", etc., with generic instructions for each. The Test | Questions tab has questions about my knowledge of lesson | planning, not questions for French students. | | "College-level calculus" was similar, just vague generic high- | level advice with no lesson plan or specific guide. | nirmel wrote: | Good catch. Will modify the prompts to make it produce the | desired content. | ineptitude wrote: | If there was a tab with a code example when the lesson is | related to programming, it would be perfect, as the chat | doesn't detect markdown's code block. | ajhai wrote: | > Building quizzes, tests, and lesson plans from curriculum | materials | | Example prompts that OpenAI shared here are a great start. | However I think these use-cases are better served as micro apps | built on top of these prompts. For example, a teacher will keep | coming back to use this prompt with same/similar set of responses | most of the year. On top of that, enriching the context with | additional information pulled from local sources will quickly | become a need. | | ChatGPT's custom instructions will help with not having to repeat | prompts but the interface falls short when it comes to repeat | narrow use cases. This is where imo LLM apps shine. A simple app | built with langchain or some low-code platforms and providing | local data from a vector store can be super powerful. | | We recently open-sourced LLMStack | (https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack), a platform that allows | users to build these micro apps to automate their workflows. Our | goal is to make these workflows sharable so someone can download | a yaml file for this prompt and chain and start using it in their | job. | tomlue wrote: | somebody write a textbook chunker that generates context from | textbooks for LLMs to build anki cards please. | | Extra credit if you build a new anki that dynamically generates | cards with different text and the same meaning to prevent answer | memorization. | wavesounds wrote: | The elephant in the room here is that these LLM's still have | problems with hallucinations. Even its only 1% or even 0.1% of | the time thats still a huge problem. You could have someone go | their whole lives believing something they were confidently | taught by an AI which is completely wrong. | | Teachers should be very careful using a vanilla LLM for education | without some kinds of extra guardrails or extra verification. | csa wrote: | > The elephant in the room here is that these LLM's still have | problems with hallucinations. Even its only 1% or even 0.1% of | the time thats still a huge problem. | | If you heard the bullshit that actual teachers say (both inside | and outside of class), you would think that "1% hallucinations" | would be a godsend. | | Don't get me wrong, some teachers are amazing and have a | "hallucination rate" that is 0% or close to it (mainly by being | willing to say they don't know or they need to look something | up), but these folks are the exceptions. | | Education as a whole attracts a decidedly mediocre group of | minds who sometimes (often?) develop god complexes. | cocoto wrote: | [flagged] | pixl97 wrote: | Damned, I'd have loved if my teachers only hallucinated 1% of | the time. Instead we had the southern Baptist football coaches | attempting to teach us science... poorly. | jheriko wrote: | in my experience, its sometimes 100% of the time, even after | repeated attempts to correct it with more specific prompts. | Even on simple problems involving divisions or multiples of | numbers from 1 to 10 with one additional operation. | chaxor wrote: | This is also the case if taught by any educator who happens to | trust the source they looked up as well. The internet, text | books, and even scientific articles can all be factually | incorrect. | | GNNs (for which LLMs are a subclass of) have a potential to be | optimized in such a way that all the knowledge contained within | them remains as parsimonious as possible. This is not the case | for a human reading some internet article for which they have | not gained extensive context within the field. | | There are plenty of people that strongly believe in strange | ideas that were taught to them by some 4th grade teacher that | was never corrected over their life. | | While you're statements are correct in this miniscule snapshot | of time, it's exceedingly short-sighted to assert that language | modeling is to be avoided due to some issues that exists this | month, and disregard the clear future of improvements that will | come very soon. | vouaobrasil wrote: | Soon to be: teachers ARE AI. | | You're all having fun now. But you'll regret using AI for | anything because soon humans will become mostly fit for manual | labour while AI concentrates the wealth of the world into the | hands of the tech elite. | | Then, without a human connection in teaching, children will grow | up into psychologically damaged adults. | throwuwu wrote: | Or teachers focus more on helping kids with the fundamental | social and organizational skills necessary for learning and | cooperating while AI handles the individualized lesson plans | for each of the topics. The kids become much better adjusted | and much more knowledgeable and go on to use AI in their | working lives to create unimaginable amounts of wealth and | productivity. | | In other words: you know what beats one elite with an AI? Ten | thousand well educated people each with their own AI. | r3trohack3r wrote: | > Soon to be: teachers ARE AI. | | > soon humans will become mostly fit for manual labour | | > without a human connection in teaching, children will grow up | into psychologically damaged adults. | | If humans are only going to be doing manual labor, what will | the AI teacher be teaching? Do you need 16+ years of education | for manual labor? | | Just taking your argument at face value, I don't understand how | "AI replaces nearly all human knowledge workers" leads to | "children become psychologically damaged adults." | | It seems like it would free them from being strapped into a | chair for 16 years and denied the opportunity to be children in | an attempt to prepare them for a life of knowledge work? Unless | we just keep up the ruse of an entire childhood of classroom | based education for ... reasons? | | To push past your argument, society and knowledge isn't zero | sum. | | I'm not writing software because it's the single most important | thing in the universe for me to focus on right now. It's | actually pretty low on the list of important things on the | grand scale of important things. I'm writing software because | it's the work that needs to be done right now and there isn't a | replacement for me doing it. | | I feel like you are asserting that plugging numbers into | spreadsheets as an accountant or doing string transformations | "at scale" to convert DB queries into HTML and JSON is both: 1) | A fulfilling life 2) The only thing humans could possibly be | doing of value right now; if you take this away there is | nothing left | | There are a tonne of fundamental questions/problems about life, | the universe, interstellar travel, preservation of our species, | etc. that I _just don't have time for_ right now because I'm | over here trying to figure out how to take these bytes coming | over the wire from an SQL query and pack them into a JSON | object so a browser can hydrate this bit of HTML. And I'm | sorry, but, this isn't how I'd choose to live my life if there | was someone else I could put in this seat. | | Please AI take my job so I can be free to focus on all of the | stuff that comes with the next layer of abstraction/automation. | snek_case wrote: | Seems like we could head towards a world where people go to | school from home, learn from AI, work remotely, get food | delivered, find entertainment in VR. Apartments get smaller and | smaller, until most people are essentially just renting a room | in a large dorm, which they almost never leave. | burkaman wrote: | Exactly the world described more than a century ago in The | Machine Stops, which I think should be required reading in | all CS curriculums. Free to read here: https://www.cs.ucdavis | .edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/.... | MandieD wrote: | I'm 10 pages in and think it should be required reading for | not only CS curriculums, and regret not having been exposed | earlier. | | Thanks for sharing. | throwuwu wrote: | No. VR is to the WWW what the WWW was to the internet. It | will bring the rest of the world onto the net where | previously only print, video, and audio were. AI will be the | next UI medium. NLUI natural language user interface or SUI | spoken user interface, somebody will come up with a better | name. | lemmox wrote: | Interesting prompts! IME the quality of the answers the users | give to the ChatGPT questions in these prompts will make or break | the experience. | | I played around with this use case in the spring when my teenage | daughter was looking for extra test prep materials. At first the | experience was interesting but there was an "AI uncanny valley" | shaped problem: the material just didn't _seem_ to fit. It _felt_ | wrong. | | This uncanny valley was significantly reduced, even eliminated in | some instances, by including the entirety of our school | district's online material about the course; information about | the core competencies (across communication, thinking, personal & | societal), the big ideas, the curricular competency & content | about the learning standards. Our district has a pretty good | website with all of this information laid out for each course and | grade level. | | Including all of this information in the prompt context resulted | in relevant and harmonious content when asking to generate course | outlines, student study-prep handouts, and even sample study | session pre-tests (although ChatGPT wasn't strong at reliably | creating answer sheets for the pre-tests). | | Context is key! | lemmox wrote: | An interesting trick I found here was to ask ChatGPT to produce | tables of concept definitions and include a metaphor for each | concept to help understanding. It was quite good at coming up | with metaphors and that actually felt kind of magical. | blibble wrote: | from their own FAQ linked from this page: Is | ChatGPT safe for all ages? ChatGPT is not meant for | children under 13, and we require that children ages 13 to 18 | obtain parental consent before using ChatGPT. | | so in other words: no | | it's grossly irresponsible to be pushing "Teaching with AI" in | this scenario | teacpde wrote: | Teaching doesn't prescribe students to be younger than 18. | catchnear4321 wrote: | you act like parental consent wasn't listed as a requirement. | though it may not be broadly recognized as such, that | requirement is an admission that it is foolish to hand a child | access without guidance. | | you know, like in the form of a parent. parental guidance. | which starts with parental consent. | | so in other words: it depends. | | it's grossly irresponsible to treat a hammer as inherently | dangerous. | waffletower wrote: | I disagree. Ethical teachers audit and examine all content they | intend to be consumed by students -- it is their responsibility | regardless of what medium or agents are used to create them. It | is common for people to disregard that generative AI is | currently a tool without agency whose use requires a selection | process. Just as a camera needs to be aimed, AI does as well. | cdblades wrote: | can you prove to me in a verifiable way that no matter what | prompt I put into ChatGPT, it won't give me pornography back? | sebzim4500 wrote: | No, but then I can't prove that to you about Google either | and I don't see schools trying to ban that. | pixl97 wrote: | Can you prove in a verifiable way no matter what you prompt | to your teacher they won't give you pornography back? | jstarfish wrote: | > can you prove to me in a verifiable way that no matter | what prompt I put into ChatGPT, it won't give me | pornography back? | | No, but if it's turning you away even when you're | explicitly asking for it, it's probably doing _good | enough_. Nobody held Yahoo, Lycos or Altavista to this | standard. | | If accidental erotica is the worst outcome you can imagine | for the shortcomings of AI teaching, please leave worrying | about this to the professionals. Consider flawed chemistry | lessons, where it tells some kid to mix two things they | shouldn't. That will _actually_ cause material harm to | everyone around them. | waffletower wrote: | It is the teacher's responsibility to evaluate any | materials they present to students. If they are given an | output they interpret to be pornographic, they decide | whether to provide it or not to students. I imagine it is | possible that you might determine something to be | pornographic that a given teacher may not. Pornography is | an interpretation, which varies culturally and politically. | Regardless, it is definitely not my responsibility to prove | what ChatGPT will provide whatsoever, I don't work for | OpenAI. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Can't imagine I'd have bothered engaging with any subject I | wasn't interested in if ChatGPT existed back then. | | Always remember the glorious few months when I had Encarta at | home before too many students had it and before teachers | clocked on where homework became just printing the page on the | subject off after removing identifying bits. | harry8 wrote: | You make a strong case about lack of education quality and | make-work time-wasting foisted upon children. | | Education is not a problem the human race has solved despite | progress made. | dustincoates wrote: | I'm ambivalent on LLMs, but I have found one really good use for | it: helping me with language learning. I'm now at a level (C1) | with my second language that it's really difficult to find | resources or even tutors to help refine it. | | So what I've been doing is chatting with Claude and asking it to | correct whatever faults I make or asking it to give me exercises | on things where I need to focus. For example, "Give me some | exercises where I need to conjugate the past tense and choose the | correct form." | | It's like a personal language learning treadmill. | Vinnl wrote: | Yeah, this Show HN convinced me: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36973400 | | Unfortunately it's no longer free to try, but it worked well. | PeterisP wrote: | Underresourced languages also are underresourced in terms of | training data for LLMs, and so for smaller languages LLMs do | have _significantly_ more problems with sometimes generating | something that 's completely weird and wrong not only in terms | of facts but also in terms of language, word choice or grammar. | isaacremuant wrote: | Just remember, that you have no guarantees that it will be | correct. | | Use a combination of external sources to cross verify. Also | spoken form generation is very important if you plan to | interact with people. | | Combining it with real conversation will definitely help. | | But I can see how it can be absolutely awesome to play around, | as an extra tool. | Miraste wrote: | I'm surprised languages aren't more of a focus in the LLM hype. | They're like if Rosetta Stone ads were true. They translate at | state of the art levels, but you can also give and ask for | context, and they're trained on native resources and culture. | There hasn't been a jump in machine translation this big and | fast, ever. | minimaxir wrote: | I'm surprised OpenAI is encouraging large system-style prompts | for the main ChatGPT webapp where they are less effective there. | | Now that the ChatGPT Playground is the default interface for the | ChatGPT API with full system prompt customization, they should be | encouraging more use there, with potential usage credits for | educational institutions. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-31 23:00 UTC)