A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Even setting aside all of those things, the whole point of school is that you learn how to do shit; not pass it off to someone or something else to do for you.
If you are just gonna use AI to do your job, why should I hire you instead of using AI myself?
The issue as I see it is that college is a barometer for success in life, which for the sake of brevity I'll just say means economic success. It's not just a place of learning, it's the barrier to entry - and any metric that becomes a goal is prone to corruption.
A student won't necessarily think of using AI as cheating themselves out of an education because we don't teach the value of education except as a tool for economic success.
If the tool is education, the barrier to success is college, and the actual goal is to be economically successful, why wouldn't a student start using a tool that breaks open that barrier with as little effort as possible?
With such a generic argument, I feel this smartass would come up with the same shitty reasoning if it came to using calculators and wikipedia or google when those things were becoming mainstream.
Using "AI to get through college" can mean a lot of different things for different people. You definitely don't need AI to "set aside concern for truth" and you can use AI to learn things better/faster.
I mean I'm far away from my college days at this point. However, I'd be using AI like a mofo if I still were.
Mainly because there was so many unclear statements in textbooks (to me) and if I had someone I could ask stupid questions to, I could more easily navigate my university career. I was never really motivated to "cheat" but for someone with huge anxiety, it would have been beneficial to more easily search for my stuff and ask follow up questions. That being said, tech has only gotten better, and I couldn't find half the stuff I did growing up that's already on the Internet even without AI.
I'm hoping more students would use it as a learning aid rather than just generating their work for though. There was a lot of people taking shortcuts and "following the rules" feels like an unvalued virtue when I was in Uni.
The thing is that education needs to adapt fast and they're not typically known for that. Not to mention, most of the teachers I knew would have neither the creativity/skills, nor the ability, nor the authority to change entire lesson plans instantly to deal with the seismic shift we're dealing with.
I'd give you calculators easily, they're straight up tools, but Google and Wikipedia aren't significantly better than AI.
Wikipedia is hardly fact checked, Google search is rolling the dice that you get anything viable.
Textbooks aren't perfect, but I kinda want the guy doing my surgery to have started there, and I want the school to make sure he knows his shit.
Wikipedia is excessively fact checked. You can test this pretty simply by making a misinformation edit on a random page. You will get banned eventually
eventually
Sorry, not what i'm looking for in a medical infosource.
We only subscribe to the best medical sources here, WebMD.
At the practice I used to use, there was a PA that would work with me. He'd give me the actual medical terms for stuff he was telling me he was worried about and between that session and the next I'd look them up, read all I could about them. Occasionally I'd find something he would peg as X and I'd find Y looked like a better match. I'd talk to him, he'd disappear for a moment and come back we'd talk about X and Y and sometimes I was right.
"Google's not bad, I use it sometimes, we have access to stuff you don't have access to, but sometimes that stuff is outdated. With Google you need to have the education to know what when an article is genuine or likely and when an article is just a drug company trying to make money"
Dude was pretty cool
Sorry, I should have clarified: they'd revert your change quickly, and your account would be banned after a few additional infractions. You think AI would be better?
I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.
I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.
I think a medical textbook would be better.
Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it's not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.
Well then we def agree. I still think Wikipedia > LLMs though. Human supervision and all that
If the teachers can use it to grade...
Congratulations! You got G!
Students turn in bullshit LLM papers. Instructors run those bullshit LLM papers through LLM grading. Humans need not apply.
I'm a slow learner, but I still want to learn.
It’s funny how everyone is against using AI for students to get summaries of texts, pdfs etc which I totally get.
But during my time through medschool, I never got my exam paper back (ever!) so the exam was a test where I needed to prove that I have enough knowledge but the exam is also allowed to show me my weaknesses are so I would work on them but no, we never get out papers back. And this extends beyond medschool, exams like the USMLE are long and tiring at the end of the day we just want a pass, another hurdle to jump on.
We criticize students a lot (righfully so) but we don’t criticize the system where students only study becase there is an exam, not because they are particularly interested in the topic at given hand.
A lot of topics that I found interesting in medicine were dropped off because I had to sit for other examinations.
If we’re gonna merge medschool, should we also do lawschool, gradschool, etc.?
Wow, people hate AI! This post has a lot of upvotes.
I personally don't "hate" it. I am, however, realistic about its capabilities. A lot of people think that LLMs can be used as a substitute for thinking.
That, any way you look at it, is a problem with severe implications.
Even before LLMs at least half of people were already pretty stupid.
I don't hate all AI, it certainly has its uses in selected applications when used correctly...
What I hate is the massive push from big tech to force it into every possible crevice regardless of suitability, the sheer amount of AI slop it's generating, the social media manipulation spinning it as a positive, the massive invasion of privacy they demand to use their services, the blatant copyright infringement underpinning it all, and the vast amounts of energy & resources it consumes.
People forget LLMs are just statistical models. They have no factual understanding on they're producing. So why should we be allowing it in an educational context?
Couldn't have put it better.
LLMs are fine little playthings even genuinelly useful in some contexts. The hype and grift around them, on the other hand, is toxic.
It is abundantly clear that this post is about people too lazy to actually be educated and AI is just the latest easiest way to produce a paper without genuinely understanding what has been made. The fact that you don’t understand that speaks volumes.
Well that disqualifies 95% of the doctors I've had the pleasure of being the patient of in Finland.
It's just not LLM:'s they're addicted to, it's bureaucracy.
The moment that we change school to be about learning instead of making it the requirement for employment then we will see students prioritize learning over "just getting through it to get the degree"
We weren't verifying things with our own eyes before AI came along either, we were reading Wikipedia, text books, journals, attending lectures, etc, and accepting what we were told as facts (through the lens of critical thinking and applying what we're told as best we can against other hopefully true facts, etc etc).
I'm a Relaxed Empiricist, I suppose :P Bill Bailey knew what he was talking about.
You never took a lab science course? Or wrote a proof in math?
Nope, I'm not in those fields, sadly. I don't even know what a maths proof is xD Though I'm sure some very smart people would know.
In my experience, "writing a proof in math" was an exercise in rote memorization. They didn't try to teach us how any of it worked, just "Write this down. You will have to write it down just like this on the test." Might as well have been a recipe for custard.
That sounds like a problem in the actual course.
One of my course exams in first year Physics involved mathematically deriving a well known theorem (forgot which, it was decades ago) from other theorems and they definitelly hadn't taught us that derivation - the only real help you got was that they told you where you could start from.
Mind you, in different courses I've had that experience of one being expected to do rote memorization of mathematical proofs in order to be able to regurgitate them on the exam.
Anyways, the point I'm making is that your experience was just being unlucky with the quality of the professors you got and the style of teaching they favored.
All of those have (more or less) strict rules imposed on them to ensure the end recipient is getting reliable information, including being able to follow information back to the actual methodology and the data that came out of it in the case of journals.
Generative AI has the express intention of jumbling its training data to create something "new" that only has to sound right. A better comparison to AI would be typing a set of words into a search engine and picking the first few links that you see, not scientific journals.