• 1 Post
  • 58 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle





  • They were banned banned. No showing of any phones in class/hallways/dorms etc. If a teacher sees a phone anywhere they’re supposed to confiscate it and call the parents.

    Granted, actually happened was that a few exam top scorers carried a phone in their bag since they “needed it in case of emergency contact from prep school”. The teachers turned a blind eye to it, and of course, the parents were also in on it. What are you gonna do, suspend the ranked No. 1 student? If anything, the only people targeted were kids with bad grades, or didn’t fit in with the “prime and proper” image the school was cultivating.



  • Back in the BERT days I had a physics major friend that stuffed a bunch of Norwegian names in a file and trained a Norwegian name generator. He also made a Moby Dick sentence generator for funsies.

    PewDiePie’s project is nothing different than a personal pet project like these cases. Nothing about being a YouTuber makes you an expert at machine learning. It should be treated the same way as any other pet project.

    If the concern is someone with large amounts of influence causing disproportionate harm with their personal projects by name alone, at least in this particular case, I feel it’s appropriate to blame someone who trusts a YouTuber’s pet project in the first place.




  • “In November, a UC San Diego Academic Senate work group report said it documented a roughly thirty-fold increase between 2020 and 2025 in incoming first-year students whose math skills tested below high school level. The report said 70% of those students fell below middle school levels.”

    I am going to copy my response to this quote, word-for-word from Reddit, to here. Just to check if I would get a different reaction, or that I’m in the wrong here.

    I wonder if the reactions to this quote itself qualify as an indicator for the overall lack of critical thinking skills.

    The quoted line fails to address what the baseline for the 30% increase is. Which fails to provide a frame of reference as to what percentage of overall admissions are failing basic math then and now. The 30% could be applied to 0.5% of total admissions, or it could apply to 65% of total admissions. The article itself does not say. Likewise, the 70% number is also compounding on top of the 30%, which makes it meaningless. The increase here could very easily fall within the margin of error.

    Given the number of numerical examples given in the article, it is unlikely these statistics were chosen while more convincing data exists, which calls into question what the author’s motivation is here.

    That being said, this is not an attempt to reject the problem presented in the article. We are seeing homework grades skyrocketing while in-class exam grades cratering year-over-year for the last 3 academic years, most likely to be caused by improved problem solving LLMs and a lack of knowledge retention by the students. Fundamentally, we do not have any better metric to determine student success that is not spoofed by AI, especially for the case of theory-heavy courses. In-class responses of upper-division courses also indicate less people interacting with the course content, which either be tied to disinterest or less critical thinking in class.

    As for returning to Standardized Testing. I think this is a “damned if you don’t, damned if you do” decision. While standardized testing can act as an indicator for critical thinking, it can also quickly turn into a memorization contest where whoever has the best prep courses wins all. In the latter case, given the costs associated with testing and test prep, it is obvious who this benefits. In addition to this, standardized testing disadvantages students that are neurodivergent or have learning disabilities, where the test taking environment itself affects students grades regardless of how much prep is done.