I would suggest the one exception to this would be courses explicitly designed to teach how to use AI, and how not to. But in that case, it's less "use AI to cheat on this course" and "AI is the tool this course is about."

Otherwise your suggestion makes sense.

▲

asdff 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Then it becomes, teach what? "To use AI", yes, and, then, to do what? Use it how? To make some software? Why? You are already taking software engineering classes to learn to make software. To write something? Why? You are already taking classes that ask you write things yourself. An AI class, to me at least, is akin to taking a class about how to pay someone to write your essay for you.

And if we are talking about the various AI strategies people have where they have LLMs talking to LLMs to come up with whatever gooblyguck, are the poor souls who've been asked to come up with the AI class for the department going to know any of these strategies themselves? Are these strategies even going to be sustainable going forward after VC is no longer subsidizing tokens?

▲

nradov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regardless of VC subsidies, the cost of compute always trends down over time. Whether you like it or not, LLMs will be a pervasive part of everyone's life forever (or at least until a better replacement comes along).

▲

asdff 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Cost of compute trending down is usually lost as the resulting software bloat that fills the empty space like a gas. We already see this with LLMs. Models get bigger and bigger in an arms race.

▲

nradov 3 hours ago | parent [-]

OK so the frontier models will be capable of doing even more, but the simple stuff they can do today will get much cheaper.

	▲	asdff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think that is a safe assumption to make. Moore's law is not playing out any longer as it used to. Jensen Huang already called it dead 4 years ago.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]