Um, did you not see, in the exact same post, where I complimented your catching a mistake I made?
If you can’t even manage to disagree, why should I give a shit about grammatically confused questions like this? You can’t even move this tangent forward, let alone say anything about the topic of the thread. You want me, someone who admits mistakes, who has repeatedly said I am fallible, who has said does not believe things absolutely, to yet again confirm I might have made a mistake or been wrong. You want me to entertain a hypothetical, rather than you take an actual stand and say that you don’t think you are superior and have not signaled that you do think that or you admit that you do think that and have signalled it.
Let alone you actually contribute something related to the topic.
Unless future generations are more clueless than current ones, they will just see you as a rude, narcissitic interloper, should some miracle lead them back to this marginal philosophy forum.
If you have some thoughts about whether students should be allowed to use AIs to write their papers, I’ll consider responding to you in this thread again.
Some of these ideas are good starting point on what needs to change in modern teaching approach.
I agree that classical lectures become less useful and perhaps will be eliminated in the future. There are already several pre-recorded lectures in many courses. What is still important is addressing questions on the taught material, but this does not require so much time. The rest of course time can be devoted to oral tests.
The splitting of students in groups is always interesting but has the risk of a few members doing the majority of the work for the team. Verification of equal workload split between the students is essential.
Short answers tests is not something I see it positively. You need to verify that students are able to explain the thought process behind an answer, not only provide a dry answer that can be memorized.
Did you not notice that I already noticed that, and had no ed in to something else, which, by the way, you have ‘tried to’ deflect away from answering openly and honestly?
If you are confused, and you still do not yet know how to become unconfused, even after I have informed you countless times already, then I do not know what else to tell tell you.
LOL How could anyone logically disagree with what another claims they see anyway?
you really do again seem to be so far behind here.
LOL Why would I say what I ‘don’t think’ when I ‘know’ what the actual Truth is already?
LOL It could not be a possibility of being otherwise to this one. LOL
LOL it writes this as though so-called “students” could be stopped from using “artificial intelligence”. LOL
And, it appears that it also could not see the irony of claiming that so-called “teachers” should be allowed to use artificial intelligence to detect if “students” are using artificial intelligence or not, when they “should not be allowed to use it”.
Yes, but there are a lot of measures in PBL approaches to deal with this, including teacher monitoring - which is not the whole time, but one can learn a lot from entering and leaving after 10 minutes repeatedly as one makes one’s way around the room and member evaluations of each other. TAs can also monitor, since they often are the ones grading essays anyway. Perhaps they even spend more sustained time in the groups, now and then.
And they want people who can work in groups/teams. And it is practical in ways that working alone on papers is not. It’s not infallible, but what is. There are few jobs where a key task is listening to lectures. We have books and videos where one can get a stream of words about any topic by experts. We don’t need another version - question and answer sessions can be better. Tell the students that you will have a question and answer session and they must prepare 10 excellent questions to ask. There won’t be time to ask them all, but they hand in the questions and these will be telling about knowledge and skill in the area. I wouldn’t do that regularly, but it’s another option. Students should be active in their learning and they will be active in their work. It so odd how much learning is passive (and/or regurgitation, if a fancy regurgitation) in academia. Small groups allow much more active learning.
But it’s too much for anew to actually add something to the thread. His hinting and alluding, on the other hand, are lovely additions. At least in the last quote he managed to allude to information he didn’t give but which might have been on topic.
it’s not ironic - students can use AIs for all sorts of things in their learning where it enhances their learning, but once the AIs are being used to do tasks meant to demonstrate the students’ knowledge and abilities in the subject area, that is a problem. You didn’t think this through. What enhances the students’ learnin? What gets in the way?
And if you care about that irony, then ask the person or people who actually claimed teachers should be allowed to use AI. You would if you were interested. But you’re not. It’s personal.
You’re just trying to find something you can write LOL about because you got embarrassed in other threads. Grow up. Pretend better to have deep knowledge of yourself and human beings. You talk about being Open and Honest, but you are so poor at introspection.
LOL Copying from “teachers” or copying from artificial intelligence never demonstrates “students” actually withheld knowledge.
Sounds like some people are just scared of losing their jobs.
Since children can learn how to read and write from computers these days, and the fact that children learn far more and in a far more beneficial way when they seek out what they really want to learn, know, and understand, being forced to go to school and learn what some very narrowed thinking adults expect and want children to learn, going to school with “teachers” really is extremely outdated.
If people can find out just about any knowledge they want from a couple of taps on a screen, schools and “teachers” are not even needed anymore anyway.
If “students” get their knowledge from “teachers” or artificial intelligence what does it matter anyway?
If only you knew “greenfuse”. If only you knew.
Could it be the case that it was you who had not thought this through fully or enough? Or, is this not a possibility?
Regarding what, exactly?
“teachers” and schools never necessarily have.
Of what exactly?
Schools and “teachers” only want to find out if “students” can repeat what those same “teachers” through those schools have been indoctrinating them to think and believe.
If the “students” do not want to learn a particular subject, then who cares what knowledge “students” have?
If governments and “teachers” want to continue to force “students” to learn particular subjects, and then punish or humiliate them when they do not learn, then always expect “students” to find ways to just say and write things to please those “teachers”, schools, and governments. This has been going on for millennia, so I am not sure why there is an apparent shock and horror of ‘now’ using artificial intelligence to do the exact same thing.
Another Truly idiotic assumption and belief.
Another Truly idiotic assumption and belief.
There is not a single thing you have shown nor proved against any of my claims.
LOL In fact, what you have said and written in other threads have only further verified my claims.
LOL
Coming from ‘the one’ who still asks the question, ‘Who am I?’
Agreed and not relevant. I never said the former was ok.
I think it was outdated long ago. I think schooling is a really confused approach to learning and education. But, then, it’s not relevant. And for some reason you are now talking about children’s education rather than adults, you know the ones who write academic essays.
Oh, they can get information from computers, sure. Not all knowledge. But again this is not relevant to the topic.
Utter, constantly repeated drivel. You’re the one who cannot possibly have his mind changed.
Not as a rule, but it sure is a problematic pattern. But again, you didn’t ask for clarification and you completely misunderstood. If a course/program/degree gives people the power to be in certain roles, and organizations are going to grant those people that kind of ‘certification’ then they need to test the students, not the students’ AIs. You’re see hypocrisy in the students using AIs to pass courses without learning as being the same as teachers using AIs to find out if they actually can write such a paper, is confusing the roles. Students can use many tools, incuding AIs to learn. The whole thread is about students using AIs to avoid learning. That specific task. Not about their use of AIs in general.
Making stuff up as usual. And that’s a question you ought to start asking yourself again, because you are one lost puppy.
Not relevant, as I never thought nor said that you said it was okay.
And the way you are going you will never know.
And this is not relevant to the topic.
See how when it is asked questions it is not even able to look at “itself”. That ego will just not allow that.
Once more, there is no “his mind” not any mind that could be changed. But while you continue to believe absolutely otherwise you will never be also to see and learn about this irrefutable Fact.
One which you are obviously stuck in.
I supposedly completely misunderstood what exactly?
And here is even further proof of the cult this one is in and how stuck in it it is.
your grammar misuse makes what you are thinking here confusing.
What roles are confusing?
you laughably think once one has a degree they have power. Which explains why you have roles confused here.
So-called “teachers” can use many tools, to keep learning, but unfortunately all too often they do not.
How do you know they are not learning? After all, and in fact, they maybe learning far from using artificial intelligence than they ever were from so-called human “teachers”.
you do not know if “students” are reading the artificial intelligence’s responses/work, which then they actually learn more from, than any learning avoidance.
you do not know what they are picking up and learning. you are those types of people who believe you know what is happening and occurring within others, when in fact you do not many more times than you believe.
LOL What this infers is that you already know the answer and so never ask the question. Which is hilarious coming from ‘you’ “greenfuse”.
Already done “greenfuse”. And already answered, irrefutably so, “greenfuse”.
Which helps explain how and why I already knew what is happening and occurring here.
That is not really correct. A teacher can at any given time ask you to explain or justify your statement/position. It has been done all the time even 30 years ago to check whether or not you just copied your stuff from somewhere, or you wrote it yourself and understand what it means.
Then that is the teacher’s and the system’s fault. Isnt it?
Sure. I’m not saying ‘bad student’ There is a factory production element to perhaps especially the finer institutions of higher education. But it’s still a problem if the student’s use AI. And yes, they can check. Unfortunately, though, the better AIs are better at hiding themselves then students are their plagiarism. Yes, people will get caught as they always have.
One of the very few times that you try to stay on topic, and your oversimplification on complex issues shows how much “truth” you carry.
How many kids do you know that they study willingly by themselves, without any guidance by parents or teachers? The vast majority of children want to play, not to study. Only a small portion of kids have self-discipline.
That is why AI is overused today, because pupils and students are lazy, they do not want to put the effort of learning, they just want the grade to pass the courses. AI is a good tool, but if students use it recklessly, it becomes another cheating mechanism.
Schools are in place to ensure that the majority of the kids should learn some basic knowledge before becoming adults. Maths, physics, chemistry, history, geography etc are seen as useless by people that do not use them directly as adults, but the courses are not only to give you specific knowledge. They aim also to teach you how to obtain knowledge at different disciplines. For instance, a cook mixes materials, so concepts borrowed from chemistry can be useful.
I will be honest with you. I dont think AI is the problem it is made out to be.
Or rather… it is, but not in the way its portrayed.
AI is made out to be this… asteroid on collision course with all of human civilization and human intellectual capacity. Something that is going to ruin everyone’s ability to think because it frees everyone from the need to think.
And i disagree with that.
Not only because in reality its very easy to verify whether or not someone cheated by using AI, but because AI is not an asteroid. Its just the last nail in the coffin.
A coffin that was made, society was laid into, and already has been nailed shut by an education and social system that is designed to reward compliance and worship rather than even the slightest shred and spark of individual thought and capacity to think.
What will AI do that the current system is not already doing?
When the present day reality of the education system is stuff like this:
People like Gabriel Gipe with the approach of “I have 180 days to turn them into revolutionaries”
Who will absolutely and by all means fail you, destroy you, persecute and remove you from the school if you do not go along with the presented ideology.
You look at AI like an asteroid.
I look at it like the last fart of an already dead system that is just about to be lowered into the ground.
There is nothing to be burned to the ground here.
Nothing to go extinct.
Because that asteroid is going to find a “planet” that is already pretty much extinct of all rational and individual thought it could destroy.
