| ▲ | altruios an hour ago | |||||||
Using LLMs for the classroom assignment is like using a forklift to lift weights in a gym: completely inappropriate and atrophic. That some 50% are using the LLMs rather than spend effort learning is not a cause to remove the ban of LLMs in the classroom. 90% of the power of an LLM is being yourself competent enough to judge its outputs. Besides, do we really need more humans coding like LLMs? | ||||||||
| ▲ | summarity an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
My comment explicitly did not focus in the use of LLMs and in fact much of the post doesn’t. Leading with the depressing “work alone” slide, it focused on similarity, not AI use. Between students, ruling even “inadvertent” exposure as the same punishable (and literally literally undeniable!) offence. There’s millions of ways to structure a class for learning, this myopic focus is not one of them. Ironically the setup ignores the very basics of human collaboration. AI merely amplifies extremes, it’s a factor but neither the cause nor culprit here. The title includes “retrospective” but the learning and changes following such a process are absent. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | MattGaiser 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
All these analogies are kind of tortured as they ignore the elephant in the room. The students want to be there to get their job getting paper. They aren’t there to learn. If society offered some reward for lifting the weight while not enforcing how, forklifts would absolutely be used to lift weights. | ||||||||
| ||||||||