Education and learning are two different things. School tests are to repeat back what has been educated to you. Meaningful learning tends to be internally motivated and AI is unlikely to fulfill that aspect.
Years ago the same thing was said about calculators, then graphing calculators. I had to drop a stat class and take it again later because the dinosaur didn’t want me to use a graphing calculator. I have ADD (undiagnosed at the time) and the calculator was a big win for me.
Naturally they were all full of shit.
But this? This is different. AI is currently as good as a graphing calculator for some engineering tasks, horrible for some others, excellent at still others. It will get better over time. And what happens when it’s awesome at everything?
What is the use of being the smartest human when you’re easily outclassed by a machine?
If we get fully automated yadda yadda, do many of us turn into mush-brained idiots who sit around posting all day? Everyone retires and builds Adirondack chairs and sips mint juleps and whatever? (That would be pretty sweet. But how to get there without mass starvation and unrest?)
Alternately, do we have to do a Butlerian Jihad to get rid of it, and threaten execution to anyone who tries to bring it back… only to ensure we have capitalism and poverty forever?
These are the questions. You have to zoom out to see them.
I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’ve used it to solve problems that would’ve taken days to figure out on my own, and my solutions might not have been as good.
I can tell whether it succeeded because its solutions either work, or they don’t. The problems I’m using it on have that property.
The problem is offloading critical thinking to a blackbox of questionably motivated design. Did you use it to solve problems or did you use it to find a sufficient approximation of a solution? If you can’t deduce why the given solution works then it is literally unknowable if your problem is solved, you’re just putting faith in an algorithm.
There are also political reasons we’ll never get luxury gay space communism from it. General Ai is the wet dream of every authoritarian: an unverifiable, omnipresent, first line source of truth that will shift the narrative to whatever you need.
The brain is a muscle and critical thinking is trained through practice; not thinking will never be a shortcut for thinking.
Specialized AI like that is not what most people know as AI. Most people reffer to it as LLMs.
Specialized AI, like that showcased, is still decades away from generalized creative thinking. You can’t ask it to do a science experiment with in a class because it just can’t. It’s only built for math proof.
Again, my argument is that it won’t never exist.
Just that it’s so far off it’d be like trying to regulate smart phone laws in the 90s. We would have only had pipe dreams as to what the tech could be, never mind its broader social context.
So tall to me when it can, in the case of this thread, clinically validated ways of teaching. We’re still decades from that.
It’s already capable of doing a lot, and there is reason to expect it will get better over time. If we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that’s not possible, we will not be prepared.
If you read, it’s capable of very little under the surface of what it is.
Show me one that is well studied, like clinical trial levels, then we’ll talk.
We’re decades away at this point.
My overall point of it’s just as meaningless to talk about now as it was in the 90s. Because we can’t convince of what a functioning product will be, never mind it’s context I’m a greater society. When we have it, we can discuss it then as we have something tangible to discuss. But where we’ll be in decades is hard to regulate now.
Why. Because you put trust into the producers of said calculators to not fuck it up. Or because you trust others to vet those machines or are you personally validating. Unless your disassembling those calculators and inspecting their chips sets your just putting your trust in someone else and claiming “this magic box is more trust worthy”
How is this kind of testing relevant anymore? Isn’t it creating an unrealistic situation, given the brave new world of AI everywhere?
What do you think testing is for? It’s to show what you know/have learned
Education and learning are two different things. School tests are to repeat back what has been educated to you. Meaningful learning tends to be internally motivated and AI is unlikely to fulfill that aspect.
This is the purpose of essay questions.
Because it test what you actually retained, not what you can convince an AI to tell you.
But what good is that if AI can do it anyway?
That is the crux of the issue.
Years ago the same thing was said about calculators, then graphing calculators. I had to drop a stat class and take it again later because the dinosaur didn’t want me to use a graphing calculator. I have ADD (undiagnosed at the time) and the calculator was a big win for me.
Naturally they were all full of shit.
But this? This is different. AI is currently as good as a graphing calculator for some engineering tasks, horrible for some others, excellent at still others. It will get better over time. And what happens when it’s awesome at everything?
What is the use of being the smartest human when you’re easily outclassed by a machine?
If we get fully automated yadda yadda, do many of us turn into mush-brained idiots who sit around posting all day? Everyone retires and builds Adirondack chairs and sips mint juleps and whatever? (That would be pretty sweet. But how to get there without mass starvation and unrest?)
Alternately, do we have to do a Butlerian Jihad to get rid of it, and threaten execution to anyone who tries to bring it back… only to ensure we have capitalism and poverty forever?
These are the questions. You have to zoom out to see them.
Because if you don’t know how to tell when the AI succeeded, you can’t use it.
To know when it succeeded, you must know the topic.
The calculator is predictable and verifiable. LLM is not
I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’ve used it to solve problems that would’ve taken days to figure out on my own, and my solutions might not have been as good.
I can tell whether it succeeded because its solutions either work, or they don’t. The problems I’m using it on have that property.
The problem is offloading critical thinking to a blackbox of questionably motivated design. Did you use it to solve problems or did you use it to find a sufficient approximation of a solution? If you can’t deduce why the given solution works then it is literally unknowable if your problem is solved, you’re just putting faith in an algorithm.
There are also political reasons we’ll never get luxury gay space communism from it. General Ai is the wet dream of every authoritarian: an unverifiable, omnipresent, first line source of truth that will shift the narrative to whatever you need.
The brain is a muscle and critical thinking is trained through practice; not thinking will never be a shortcut for thinking.
That says more about you.
There are a lot of cases where you can not know if it worked unless you have expertise.
It can’t. It just fucking can’t. We’re all pretending it does, but it fundamentally can’t.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/10/12/apples-study-proves-that-llm-based-ai-models-are-flawed-because-they-cannot-reason
Creative thinking is still a long way beyond reasoning as well. We’re not close yet.
It can and it has done creative mathematical proof work. Nothing spectacular, but at least on par with a mathematics grad student.
Specialized AI like that is not what most people know as AI. Most people reffer to it as LLMs.
Specialized AI, like that showcased, is still decades away from generalized creative thinking. You can’t ask it to do a science experiment with in a class because it just can’t. It’s only built for math proof.
Again, my argument is that it won’t never exist.
Just that it’s so far off it’d be like trying to regulate smart phone laws in the 90s. We would have only had pipe dreams as to what the tech could be, never mind its broader social context.
So tall to me when it can, in the case of this thread, clinically validated ways of teaching. We’re still decades from that.
Show me a human that can do it.
It’s already capable of doing a lot, and there is reason to expect it will get better over time. If we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that’s not possible, we will not be prepared.
If you read, it’s capable of very little under the surface of what it is.
Show me one that is well studied, like clinical trial levels, then we’ll talk.
We’re decades away at this point.
My overall point of it’s just as meaningless to talk about now as it was in the 90s. Because we can’t convince of what a functioning product will be, never mind it’s context I’m a greater society. When we have it, we can discuss it then as we have something tangible to discuss. But where we’ll be in decades is hard to regulate now.
Alpha Fold. We’re not decades away. We’re years at worst.
If you want to compare a calculator to an LLM, you could at least reasonably expect the calculator result to be accurate.
Why. Because you put trust into the producers of said calculators to not fuck it up. Or because you trust others to vet those machines or are you personally validating. Unless your disassembling those calculators and inspecting their chips sets your just putting your trust in someone else and claiming “this magic box is more trust worthy”
It often is. I’ve got a lot of use out of it.