this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
235 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59740 readers
3679 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Education has a fundamental incentive problem. I want to embrace AI in my classroom. I've been studying ways of using AI for personalized education since I was in grade school. I wanted personalized education, the ability to learn off of any tangent I wanted, to have tools to help me discover what I don't know so I could go learn it.
The problem is, I'm the minority. Many of my students don't want to be there. They want a job in the field, but don't want to do the work. Your required course isn't important to them, because they aren't instructional designers who recognize that this mandatory tangent is scaffolding the next four years of their degree. They have a scholarship, and can't afford to fail your assignment to get feedback. They have too many courses, and have to budget which courses to ignore. The university holds a duty to validate that those passing the courses met a level of standards and can reproduce their knowledge outside of a classroom environment. They have a strict timeline - every year they don't certify their knowledge to satisfaction is a year of tuition and random other fees to pay.
If students were going to university to learn, or going to highschool to learn, instead of being forced there by societal pressures - if they were allowed to learn at their own pace without fear of financial ruin - if they were allowed to explore the topics they love instead of the topics that are financially sound - then there would be no issue with any of these tools. But the truth is much bleaker.
Great students are using these tools in astounding ways to learn, to grow, to explore. Other students - not bad necessarily, but ones with pressures that make education motivated purely by extrinsic factors than intrinsic - have a perfect crutch available to accidentally bypass the necessary steps of learning. Because learning can be hard, and tedious, and expensive, and if you don't love it, you'll take the path of least resistance.
In game design, we talk about not giving the player the tools to optimize their fun away. I love the new wave of AI, I've been waiting for this level of natural language processing and generation capability for a very long time, but these are the tools for students to optimize the learning away. We need to reframe learning and education. We need to bring learning front and center instead of certification. Employers need to recognize this, universities need to recognize this, highschools and students and parents need to recognize this.
This is fine and all and you have a point, but in the current system many times the subject isn't about the subject it's about the auxiliary skills you pick up along the way. My history classes in high schopl weren't really about history. I mean if I retained those facts, fantastic, they were more about analyzing given evidence and multiple references to make a point. I'm an engineer and I use that skill all the time. Facts about the Civil War not so much.
Even in college I had classes like that. It's why just programming the answer wasn't always allowed although literally everyone in the university took a programming class freshmen year. That wasn't always the point.
To always allow AI is like never taking the time to teach kids how to do arithmetic by hand. I mean, sure, we could do that, but learning arithmetic is not really about memorizing times tables and more about understanding the concept of a number and internalizing counting and so much stuff people don't realize they use all the time the existence of a calculator or not.
I think there is some value in not allowing AI usage sometimes. Before you use a calculator you should learn how to do it by hand so you can have a sense of when you've keyed something in wrong. AI has entered my workplace and it's so annoying. People who never knew how to write the things they ask AI to do can't vet the AI output and the result is somehow worse to me than if they'd bumbled something by hand. That's kind of what I'm afraid of in the future. I don't think that AI is ever going to be perfect and kids have to know what output they're looking for before they're taking this shortcut.
100%, and this is really my main point. Because it should be hard and tedious, a student who doesn't really want to learn - or doesn't have trust in their education - will bypass those tedious bits with the AI rather than going through those tedious, auxiliary skills that you're expected to pick up, and use the AI was a personal tutor - not a replacement for those skills.
So often students are concerned about getting a final grade, a final result, and think that was the point, thus, "If ChatGPT can just give me the answer what was the point", but no, there were a bunch of skills along the way that are part of the scaffolding and you've bypassed them through improper use of available tools. For example, in some of our programming classes we intentionally make you use worse tools early to provide a fundamental understanding of the evolution of the language ergonomics or to understand the underlying processes that power the more advanced, but easier to use, concepts. It helps you generalize later, so that you don't just learn how to solve this problem in this programming language, but you learn how to solve the problem in a messy way that translates to many languages before you learn the powerful tools of this language. As a student, you may get upset you're using something tedious or out of date, but as a mentor I know it's a beneficial step in your learning career.
Maybe it would help to teach students about learning early, and how learning works.
The core issue here is we don't know how to measure the skill of learning directly.
I'm 100% in agreement. I think that our school system fails deeply in expressing the point. What I liked about college was what even if it was tedious, etc my professors took the time to explain why I needed to do it this way first and what the dangerous of not having some of these skills were. Did I always believe them? No, but now that I'm out in the world working I definitely know they were always right and I'm glad I did it anyway even if I didn't always believe them.
Grade school is a different beast and I spent so much time frustrated and bored and not knowing what the point was. If it wasn't for the fact that I just really wanted to be a roboticist and there was only one school in my state I could so that at, I probably would have done the least effort thing all the time.
I did appreciate my calculus teacher who gave us word problems. It really helped me understand the point of calculus. Those words problems showed me there were scenarios where algebra was not gonna cut it. I wish more of my grade school classes explained the point of it all after it became less obvious from middle school onwards.
I agree mostly with your comment. Math class used to be called logic, because that's really what the general population is there for. Math is a vehicle to learn logical thinking. Those who become engineers or physicists will then learn how to apply those logic skills in their chosen field.
I disagree that history classes were mainly there to analyze evidence to make a point. We learn history, so that we can better participate in discussions, know where we came from, and learn from past mistakes. It's vital that voters have an understanding of history to prevent bad things from happening. Don't get me wrong, the main point about history classes wasn't learning exact dates, but to have a good understanding of the timeline and have a good grasp of major events in the country/world. It's that part, learning details about major events that I'm concerned will be glossed over with AI coming into play. How can you recognize a destructive political trend if you never learned why it was destructive in the past?
I say history is for analysis because honestly anything that would let you truly understand today isn't taught. Yes you will learn about segregation, but my history classes barely touched my grandparent's time, so it's hard to connect that middle missing period to today. Sure. I'm the mind of person to go fill in that middle period, but many people aren't.
What was useful to me was the analysis part. Seeing how bias was in sources. Seeing how different people had the same sources, but different conclusions. Yes, seeing how a past event caused a future event.
But, I don't think many people in the US connect US history with why we have many things going on today. Grade school history isn't going to give that. My college history lessons did though. I had a whole ass history class on nothing by lobbying and I really gained an appreciation for why lobby should exist, how Americans are ridiculous, and how writing laws to keep the good of something, but not the bad is really hard. But no, I cannot tell you anything about the history of lobbying to day I spent 3 months studying and debating about it.
Back to math for a bit. I think that the logic part of math needs to be brought more into focus again. I think that programming is only going to become more and more important and it's a shame we're not teaching any of the fundamentals to allow people to even do things by make fancy excel formulas.
I appreciate the comment, and it's a point I'll be making this year in my courses. More than ever, students have been struggling to motivate themselves to do the work. The world's on fire and it's hard to intrinsically motivate to do hard things for the sake of learning, I get it. Get a degree to get a job to survive, learning is secondary. But this survival mindset means that the easiest way is the best way, and it's going to crumble long-term.
It's like jumping into an MMORPG and using a bot to play the whole game. Sure you have a cap level character, but you have no idea how to play, how to build a character, and you don't get any of the references anyone else is making.
If someone can use the tool to do the job successfully, I don't see if that learning was actually necessary. Like I learned to use a phone rather than a telegraph. I learned how to drive a car rather than ride a horse. I learned a calculator rather than a sliderule.
Of course we're still at the stage where you need to double check the tool,but that skill is maybe more like supervising someone rather than directly doing the task.
I can imagine prompt engineering will actually be a thing, and asking the AI to fix parts that don't work is the short term. We already can ask the AI to look over it's own work for mistakes, I have to imagine that's going to be built in soon...
The worse thing is if the student can actually ootimize the learning away with the AI, so too can employers optimize away the potential employees.
This is a very output-driven perspective. Another comment put it well, but essentially when we set up our curriculum we aren't just trying to get you to produce the one or two assignments that the AI could generate - we want you to go through the motions and internalize secondary skills. We've set up a four year curriculum for you, and the kinds of skills you need to practice evolve over that curriculum.
This is exactly the perspective I'm trying to get at work my comment - if you go to school to get a certification to get a job and don't care at all about the learning, of course it's nonsense to "waste your time" on an assignment that ChatGPT can generate for you. But if you're there to learn and develop a mastery, the additional skills you would have picked up by doing the hard thing - and maybe having a Chat AI support you in a productive way - is really where the learning is.
If 5 year olds can generate a university level essay on the implications of thermodynamics on quantum processing using AI, that's fun, but does the 5 year old even know if that's a coherent thesis? Does it imply anything about their understanding of these fields? Are they able to connect this information to other places?
Learning is an intrinsic task that's been turned into a commodity. Get a degree to show you can generate that thing your future boss wants you to generate. Knowing and understanding is secondary. This is the fear of generative AI - further losing sight that we learn though friction and the final output isn't everything. Note that this is coming from a professor that wants to mostly do away with grades, but recognizes larger systemic changes need to happen.
I am very pro learning, but I also have basically seen that our society doesn't value it. We're anti expertise to our detriment. I like figuring things out and learning... But I am not sure that that's any more than an opinion I hold. If the learning doesn't help you in life, I have a hard time defending it as more than a preference.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - my values and motivations aren't the only ones, and I can't prove them as the right ones. If someone is primarily motivated by making money, learning is a little correlated with that, but it's not overwhelmingly so. More specifically - writing ChatGPT style essays are something I believe plenty of people have lucrative careers without ever doing.
I not even convinced college has positive ROI anymore. In that context, the output is the issue. In the context of most jobs it is also the issue.
Maybe this analogy will help - do you feel that all the people taking better pictures than ever thanks to AI in their cellphone cameras and automatic post processing have missed an important skill of working out ISO, aperture and shutter speed? Do you think they would mostly agree those skills are useful? Are there a lot of jobs for "camera technicians" where the manual settings are what they're hired for?
Now, I agree that in my analogy - if you know how the settings relate to freezing motion or background blur or whatever, you can take better pictures and likely have a higher hit rate. But I don't think the world prioritizes that, and I am not sure in the bigger picture they are wrong.