You know, back in the day, teachers used to try and convey the "why" behind things like writing essays and reading books. Spark notes existed, but a good teacher could convey, hey, there is a reason we are doing this thing, it is because it has value outside the note that says you completed the task itself.
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student? And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
While this might be more true of "factoid based classes" (such as geography) - it completely misses the point of subjects where students actively benefit from struggling through the act of the craft itself. (writing, music, foreign languages, etc.)
First of all, the entire post reads like it was written by AI.
Secondly, the author / prompter misses the point entirely with this closing paragraph:
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
You learn fundamentals because they are necessary for you to understand how the magic works, and because that’s how the human brain works.
Is it important for you to be able to write a binary search algorithm perfectly from scratch? Not especially, no. Is it important for you to be able to describe what it’s doing, and why? Yes, very much so, because otherwise you won’t know when to use it.
If your rebuttal to this is “we can feed the problem to AI and let it figure that out,” I don’t want to live in that world; where curiosity and thought are cast aside in favor of faster results.
> To be clear, I’m not advocating for AI in real learning. AI is only useful right now as a stress test as it reveals how hollow adolescent work has become. If it pushes schools toward offering work with relevance, impact, and agency and away from hopeless busywork (“When will I ever use this?”), that is a win.
But how will they ever know that if they don’t go through the process? I am not saying the current way of teaching is perfect but you can’t tell what is and isn’t bullshit without some experience at some point.
We had a mandatory home economics class that taught how to balance a check book, cook, do laundry, and even how taxes worked. Yet people still thought that class was bullshit and a waste of time. Many classes such as health, gym, shop, a/v, typing, all had people blowing it off as useless stuff they will never need to know. ChatGPT turning every class into that is a nightmare future for the youth of the world. People will grow up entirely unable to think.
Most western countries have somehow decided over the last couple decades that small negative actions should mostly be free of negative consequences.
You can cheat on tests, shoplift in stores, and pretty much nothing will happen to you.
When teachers can’t give failing grades to students or kick them out of their class for blatantly breaking the rules, this is what happens.
Meanwhile I took a language exam in Japan last weekend where a bunch of people got kicked out of the room - instant fail - for using their phone during the break when it was expressly disallowed (we had to put it in a sealed envelope that we couldn’t open until the exam was over, break included). Given reports I’ve heard, I suspect at least a single digit percent of test takers failed the test this session simply for breaking this rule.
From the test takers who got kicked out of the room and tried to negotiate (unsuccessfully) with the proctors, it was instantly obvious who came from cultures where the consequences of rules are carried out and who didn’t.
The learning is the point. Learning by nature shouldn't be optimized for efficiency. You learn deeply when you have to read sources, draw conclusions, synthesize information, and connect it to your own experiences. I recall writing essays in grade school and what mattered wasn't the end product but the process to arrive at the end product. The hours of research and analysis... figuring out what was true and what was questionable. When you skip steps 1-10 and arrive at the final deliverable a la ChatGPT, you miss the entire point of the assignment. Unfortunately, students are only judged on the final deliverable.
Truly, I think the only way we get back to real learning is through paper and pencil. The problem is that we've optimized our systems for learning efficiency, not learning efficacy.
> the system loses legitimacy, defection becomes the dominant strategy.
Almost every sentence of this piece is a very powerful reminder that we're not really talking about education vs cheating and it's actually about real work vs optics, appearances vs reality, fake news vs information, and all the rest at the same time. A certain amount of bullshit is and always has been standard, and you see it in all kinds of folk wisdom (e.g. "the people capable of being politicians are the least qualified", "those who do not steal steal from themselves", "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"). But in a very short period of time, society itself has shifted away from rewarding real effort or real results almost everywhere.
I agree that game-theory is a pretty good way to understand it, but the conclusions are pretty dark. Defection as the only available strategy and equilibriums that add up to large-scale attractors that we maybe cannot escape.
This article doesn’t really jive with me. Homework is more about spaced repetition and the discipline to do it. The notion that it is about writing an insightful essay with a novel interpretation of an already well trodden topic is overly dramatic. Maybe that’s truly what happens at Ivy Academy but most of the children around me are filling in the blanks to conjugate verbs, practicing cursive, or doing some other variation of 10 - catpaw = 7? drill*.
At some point these kids will be faced with a timed pen-and-paper exam. The earlier you can show them what that’s like and how one needs to prepare for it the better.
On the other hand, I taught high school CS that was assessed solely with terminal examination. If you’re managing pupils whose mark comes from papers they write at home I concede the article’s point entirely!
This is just another aspect of the failure to foster a positive society. The rich who are balls deep in AI don't give a fuck about what happens at a societal level. They want numbers to go up and the result is dumb people in charge of things they shouldn't be in charge of.
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?
The purpose of an assignment is to give the student problems that can be solved by applying the knowledge and techniques they were taught in class, so that the student can gain experience using that knowledge and those techniques and demonstrate that they have done so to the teacher.
before you can work on unique problems, you need to learn to solve problems that have already been solved. the problem then is that if a problem has already been solved, AI has been trained with the solution and is able to reproduce it.
think about it this way: any question or task you give to a student that is similar to a question or task that you gave students a year earlier, can be solved by applying the solutions collected from the previous year. and if that is the case, then a machine can solve those tasks too.
the amount of effort needed to design questions and tasks so that a machine can not solve them is way to big to be realistic for any subjects that are not novel. which is everything you learn in school.
It's just so... AI. If the author wanted to make a pro-AI-writing point, maybe they shouldn't have let the AI start their essay with the exact AI grammar we're all exhausted having to read every day.
This article isn't really about AI. It's about how this blogger doesn't value high-school education beyond it serving as a day-care. Talking about AI is for dressing this up as a controversial hot-take for click-bait.
The root of the flaw in this thinking is a common assumption that school is designed to create drones for the workforce rather than to round out human beings. Giving youth an opportunity to be a part of a shared understanding and a shared culture that is rooted in the history of the previous generations.
This kind of essay is on par with a general theme of discrediting and devaluing teachers and school in English speaking countries that is reinforced by Hollywood and out of touch billionaires. It's not doing us any favours because kids pick up on this disdain and make if part of their own identities.
I'm even more convinced by this when I look at other things this person has asked GPT to write for them. Their core focus is on convincing people not to value traditional education so that they can sell their own competing product.
Why not just let it be survival of the fittest? Those who are lazy will continue to be lazy. Those who are determined will continue to be determined. We don't need to help everyone, especially those who don't want to help themselves. If they want to suffer financially in the future because they are being lazy now, oh well, it can't be helped.
You'd hope AI would be used more to support children and teach them. Can you imagine a patient teacher who's available 24/7? I actually ask LLMs to teach me stuff sometimes, and it does work, but... early days.
I think there must be a different angle to win this game.
If you play fairly, the skills and knowledge you learned are truly yours. But if you are outsourcing all your proficiencies to an AI, than what will become of you?
Kids want to be cool unique snowflakes, if one can master a skill without the resorting to cheating, one will gain the ability to impress the peers.
My entire (non American) education career was exam based. The exams were tightly supervised, no books etc. Every thing had to be memorised. Cheating was impossible.
Funny thing is, memorising something is a big help to understanding it.
In that system, AI is a very useful tool. AFAIK, this is how they still do it in many Asian countries.
It worked pretty well. Produced a lot of educated people.
Learning skills are hard. Learning to add numbers requires drills. Learning to read big books is hard. There's no getting around that except that some students are intrinsically motivated, but all of them need to learn to read, write, and calculate and hopefully do so with meaningful and accurate information.
35 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 95.3 ms ] thread> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student? And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
While this might be more true of "factoid based classes" (such as geography) - it completely misses the point of subjects where students actively benefit from struggling through the act of the craft itself. (writing, music, foreign languages, etc.)
Secondly, the author / prompter misses the point entirely with this closing paragraph:
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
You learn fundamentals because they are necessary for you to understand how the magic works, and because that’s how the human brain works.
Is it important for you to be able to write a binary search algorithm perfectly from scratch? Not especially, no. Is it important for you to be able to describe what it’s doing, and why? Yes, very much so, because otherwise you won’t know when to use it.
If your rebuttal to this is “we can feed the problem to AI and let it figure that out,” I don’t want to live in that world; where curiosity and thought are cast aside in favor of faster results.
But how will they ever know that if they don’t go through the process? I am not saying the current way of teaching is perfect but you can’t tell what is and isn’t bullshit without some experience at some point.
We had a mandatory home economics class that taught how to balance a check book, cook, do laundry, and even how taxes worked. Yet people still thought that class was bullshit and a waste of time. Many classes such as health, gym, shop, a/v, typing, all had people blowing it off as useless stuff they will never need to know. ChatGPT turning every class into that is a nightmare future for the youth of the world. People will grow up entirely unable to think.
By that logic now that text to speech has gotten quite good we should stop teaching kids to read.
You can cheat on tests, shoplift in stores, and pretty much nothing will happen to you.
When teachers can’t give failing grades to students or kick them out of their class for blatantly breaking the rules, this is what happens.
Meanwhile I took a language exam in Japan last weekend where a bunch of people got kicked out of the room - instant fail - for using their phone during the break when it was expressly disallowed (we had to put it in a sealed envelope that we couldn’t open until the exam was over, break included). Given reports I’ve heard, I suspect at least a single digit percent of test takers failed the test this session simply for breaking this rule.
From the test takers who got kicked out of the room and tried to negotiate (unsuccessfully) with the proctors, it was instantly obvious who came from cultures where the consequences of rules are carried out and who didn’t.
The learning is the point. Learning by nature shouldn't be optimized for efficiency. You learn deeply when you have to read sources, draw conclusions, synthesize information, and connect it to your own experiences. I recall writing essays in grade school and what mattered wasn't the end product but the process to arrive at the end product. The hours of research and analysis... figuring out what was true and what was questionable. When you skip steps 1-10 and arrive at the final deliverable a la ChatGPT, you miss the entire point of the assignment. Unfortunately, students are only judged on the final deliverable.
Truly, I think the only way we get back to real learning is through paper and pencil. The problem is that we've optimized our systems for learning efficiency, not learning efficacy.
Almost every sentence of this piece is a very powerful reminder that we're not really talking about education vs cheating and it's actually about real work vs optics, appearances vs reality, fake news vs information, and all the rest at the same time. A certain amount of bullshit is and always has been standard, and you see it in all kinds of folk wisdom (e.g. "the people capable of being politicians are the least qualified", "those who do not steal steal from themselves", "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"). But in a very short period of time, society itself has shifted away from rewarding real effort or real results almost everywhere.
I agree that game-theory is a pretty good way to understand it, but the conclusions are pretty dark. Defection as the only available strategy and equilibriums that add up to large-scale attractors that we maybe cannot escape.
At some point these kids will be faced with a timed pen-and-paper exam. The earlier you can show them what that’s like and how one needs to prepare for it the better.
On the other hand, I taught high school CS that was assessed solely with terminal examination. If you’re managing pupils whose mark comes from papers they write at home I concede the article’s point entirely!
* catpaw = 3
The purpose of an assignment is to give the student problems that can be solved by applying the knowledge and techniques they were taught in class, so that the student can gain experience using that knowledge and those techniques and demonstrate that they have done so to the teacher.
think about it this way: any question or task you give to a student that is similar to a question or task that you gave students a year earlier, can be solved by applying the solutions collected from the previous year. and if that is the case, then a machine can solve those tasks too.
the amount of effort needed to design questions and tasks so that a machine can not solve them is way to big to be realistic for any subjects that are not novel. which is everything you learn in school.
> Y did.
> And that might be...
It's just so... AI. If the author wanted to make a pro-AI-writing point, maybe they shouldn't have let the AI start their essay with the exact AI grammar we're all exhausted having to read every day.
- when students come to the classroom, before assigning them work, have them place their cellphones at the teacher's table
- then give them homework, as simple as that
The root of the flaw in this thinking is a common assumption that school is designed to create drones for the workforce rather than to round out human beings. Giving youth an opportunity to be a part of a shared understanding and a shared culture that is rooted in the history of the previous generations.
This kind of essay is on par with a general theme of discrediting and devaluing teachers and school in English speaking countries that is reinforced by Hollywood and out of touch billionaires. It's not doing us any favours because kids pick up on this disdain and make if part of their own identities.
I'm even more convinced by this when I look at other things this person has asked GPT to write for them. Their core focus is on convincing people not to value traditional education so that they can sell their own competing product.
This is Idiocracy in the making.
If you play fairly, the skills and knowledge you learned are truly yours. But if you are outsourcing all your proficiencies to an AI, than what will become of you?
Kids want to be cool unique snowflakes, if one can master a skill without the resorting to cheating, one will gain the ability to impress the peers.
Push in that direction.
>It strips away everything that can be automated, leaving only what requires actual thinking: creativity, collaboration, real-world problem-solving.
This is rich coming from an article written by AI instructed to SEO it to the moon.
Funny thing is, memorising something is a big help to understanding it.
In that system, AI is a very useful tool. AFAIK, this is how they still do it in many Asian countries.
It worked pretty well. Produced a lot of educated people.