Literal Pavlovian conditioning.
isleepinahammock
joined 2 years ago
Person A gives an AI a list of bullet points and instructs it to expand the bullet points into an email.
Person B receives the email and asks AI to summarize it into bullet points.
An ocean of water could have been saved if the Person A had just emailed the bullet points directly, and the information transfer would have been far superior.
Exactly. I use AI primarily as a natural-language search engine, when searching for things that can quickly be independently verified. One of the best uses for it is when you know a thing probably exists, but you don't know the name for it. You can describe to the LLM the object or problem in detail, and it will give you a name. You can then take that word and do a non-AI search to instantly confirm if it got it right.
I'll never use an AI for something I can't at least verify without an AI.
So you teach something different from the mainstream - cool. But don’t be surprised when students or AI cite others or take an alternative position.
Not every class is debate. Plenty of courses are simply taught by an expert in their field, and students are graded on how well they learn from that professor's instruction. Is it a perfect system? No. But that's why we have experts. Some classes exist to simply establish a baseline of knowledge among the students. Such classes cannot be continuously derailed by engaging in rigorous debate about topics that experts in the field consider unambiguous and long-settled. Students are free to form their own opinions and whatever conclusions they want, but they need to demonstrate that they have at least learned the material as taught. You can believe the Universe is 6000 years old if you want. You cannot expect your astronomy professor to spend half the class debating with you about it.
A creationist student doesn't have to believe in evolution to get an A in an evolutionary biology class. But they do have to demonstrate mastery or at least competence in the principles of evolutionary biology as taught by their professor. If they want to view the whole course as "a silly exercise in memorizing the lies of evolutionists," well they're free to do so. It's a free country. Believe whatever you want. But that doesn't mean they can just write, "God did it" to every answer on the final and still receive a passing grade.
You're free to believe or reject anything a teacher or professor teaches you. That doesn't mean you get out of learning the lesson entirely.
I love your approach. This way, you don't even have to bust the students for using AI!
It's often very difficult to tell the difference between a student that uses AI and a student that performs a traditional search of the topic and just copies facts blindly and uncritically. AI writing detectors are simply not reliable enough to serve as the basis for a charge of academic misconduct. What do you do if you accuse someone of using AI, and it turns out they just happen to write in a style that's reminiscent of AI? What do you do if someone claims they just happen to write how an AI sounds? What if someone says they just used Grammerly, so now it's ambiguous what portion of their writing is their own? Academic misconduct and AI gets very thorny very quickly.
But your approach? Brilliant. Just give them a paper whose topic you taught them correctly, but you know AI will screw up. No need to affirmatively prove the cheater used AI. Just give the cheater a failing grade on the paper, because it clearly doesn't reflect what you taught them. They have no ability to later argue that they're innocent or lie that they did not in fact use AI. Their paper simply wasn't good enough to get a passing grade.
Honestly, it's pure genius. As a fellow educator, I commend you!
If money is a form of speech, so are bullets.
Maybe we shouldn't bait-and-switch people by calling something private that is anything but.
This is just victim blaming. These people are victims of corporate deceit, and you're blaming them for it. What was she wearing? Maybe that contributing to it as well!
That's the fundamental problem I have with this. I don't believe in trapping people through gotcha bear traps. If you're going to be scanning every message for violations of rules, you shouldn't be advertising that service as private. In fact, they shouldn't even have DMs in that case.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Your Private Chats have no expectation of privacy.
Read more carefully. I'm obviously not talking about how these online spaces are legally defined. I'm talking about how the companies instruct their users to use them. I don't blame people for acting in a way that they're told they can act.
"The private chat has no expectation of privacy!"
Orwellian bullshit.
You are advocating for the death of children.
The policies you support will, on net, kill far more children than they save. These inevitably have an extremely high false-positive rates. For every one actual school shooter you catch, you end up ruining the lives of a thousand innocent children. Many of those will have their lives completely disrupted, many dying early deaths of from suicide and drug overdose.
You are are advocating for the death of children.
Bioluminescent plants exist as a commercial product. You can order them right now. I ordered some of these myself. (Though I'm terrible with plants. I didn't water them enough, and they died.)
But this isn't vaporware. You can actually order them, and I have. What is vaporware however is the idea of using these as streetlights. With the petunias I had, if you took them into a dark room and let your eyes adjust, you could see a faint blue glow off of some regions of the petunia's petals.
But these are true bioluminescent plants. It took adding multiple genetic alterations to get the petunias to carry their bioluminescence from generation to generation, but this has been done.