Comment on It's Breathtaking How Fast AI Is Screwing Up the Education System
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks agoBecause it test what you actually retained, not what you can convince an AI to tell you.
Comment on It's Breathtaking How Fast AI Is Screwing Up the Education System
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks agoBecause it test what you actually retained, not what you can convince an AI to tell you.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
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 star class and take it again later because the dinosaur didn’t want me to use a graphing calculator.
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.
Natanael@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
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.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
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.
shoo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Natanael@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
That says more about you.
There are a lot of cases where you can not know if it worked unless you have expertise.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
It can’t. It just fucking can’t. We’re all pretending it does, but it fundamentally can’t.
appleinsider.com/…/apples-study-proves-that-llm-b…
Creative thinking is still a long way beyond reasoning as well. We’re not close yet.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
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.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
It can and it has done creative mathematical proof work. Nothing spectacular, but at least on par with a mathematics grad student.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
pinkapple@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
This directly applies to the human journalist, studies on other models 6 years ago are pretty much irrelevant and this one apparently tested very small distilled ones that you can run on consumer hardware at home (Llama3 8B lol).
Anyway this study seems trash if their conclusion is that small and fine-tuned models (user compliance includes not suspecting intentionally wrong prompts) failing to account for human misdirection somehow means “no evidence of formal reasoning”. Which means using formal logic and formal operations and not reasoning in general, we use informal reasoning for the vast majority of what we do daily and we also rely on “sophisticated pattern matching” lmao, it’s called cognitive heuristics. Kahneman won the Nobel prize for recognizing type 1 and type 2 thinking in humans.
Why don’t you go repeat the experiment yourself on huggingface (accounts are free, over ten models to test, actually many are the same ones the study used) and see what actually happens? Try it on model chains that have a reasoning model like R1 and Qwant and just see for yourself and report back. It would be intellectually honest to verify things since we’re talking about critical thinking in here.
Oh add a control group here, a comparison with average human performance to see what the really funny but hidden part is. Pro-tip: CS STEMlords catastrophically suck when larping being cognitive scientists.
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
So you say I should be intellectually honest by doing the experiment myself, then say that my experiment is going to be shit anyways? Sure… That’s also intellectually honest.
Here’s the thing.
My education is in physics, not CS. I know enough to know what I try isn’t going to be really valid.
But unless you have peer reviewed searches to show otherwise, because I would take your home grown experiment to be as valid as mine.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
If you want to compare a calculator to an LLM, you could at least reasonably expect the calculator result to be accurate.
Zexks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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”
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
A combination of personal vetting via analyzing output and the vetting of others. For instance, the Pentium calculation error was in the news. Otherwise, calculation by computer processor is understood and the technology is acceptable to be used for cases involving human lives.
In contrast, there are several documented cases where LLM’s have been incorrect in the news to a point where I don’t need personal vetting. No one is anywhere close to stating that LLM’s can be used in cases involving human lives.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
It often is. I’ve got a lot of use out of it.