You know, back in the day, teachers used to try and convey the "why" behind things like writing essays and reading books. Spark notes existed, but a good teacher could convey, hey, there is a reason we are doing this thing, it is because it has value outside the note that says you completed the task itself.
First of all, the entire post reads like it was written by AI.
Secondly, the author / prompter misses the point entirely with this closing paragraph:
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
You learn fundamentals because they are necessary for you to understand how the magic works, and because that’s how the human brain works.
Is it important for you to be able to write a binary search algorithm perfectly from scratch? Not especially, no. Is it important for you to be able to describe what it’s doing, and why? Yes, very much so, because otherwise you won’t know when to use it.
If your rebuttal to this is “we can feed the problem to AI and let it figure that out,” I don’t want to live in that world; where curiosity and thought are cast aside in favor of faster results.
> They’re copying essays from AI, running them through “humanizing” tools, and handing in work they’ve barely read. They’re having AI listen to lectures so they don’t have to. They’re sneaking AI via their mobile phones into tests.
The essay thing is real, but I am not mad at AI summarizing lectures. And someone having access to a phone will cheat with Google if not AI.
And many teachers I know do written in-person tests now. They aren’t as obsessed with perfect sentence construction, and say they value students individual quirks more (they seem more pleasing against the backdrop of AI slop).
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student? And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
While this might be more true of "factoid based classes" (such as geography) - it completely misses the point of subjects where students actively benefit from struggling through the act of the craft itself. (writing, music, foreign languages, etc.)
You know, back in the day, teachers used to try and convey the "why" behind things like writing essays and reading books. Spark notes existed, but a good teacher could convey, hey, there is a reason we are doing this thing, it is because it has value outside the note that says you completed the task itself.
Back in the day when teachers’ salary can support a family I bet
First of all, the entire post reads like it was written by AI.
Secondly, the author / prompter misses the point entirely with this closing paragraph:
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
You learn fundamentals because they are necessary for you to understand how the magic works, and because that’s how the human brain works.
Is it important for you to be able to write a binary search algorithm perfectly from scratch? Not especially, no. Is it important for you to be able to describe what it’s doing, and why? Yes, very much so, because otherwise you won’t know when to use it.
If your rebuttal to this is “we can feed the problem to AI and let it figure that out,” I don’t want to live in that world; where curiosity and thought are cast aside in favor of faster results.
> They’re copying essays from AI, running them through “humanizing” tools, and handing in work they’ve barely read. They’re having AI listen to lectures so they don’t have to. They’re sneaking AI via their mobile phones into tests.
The essay thing is real, but I am not mad at AI summarizing lectures. And someone having access to a phone will cheat with Google if not AI.
And many teachers I know do written in-person tests now. They aren’t as obsessed with perfect sentence construction, and say they value students individual quirks more (they seem more pleasing against the backdrop of AI slop).
So yes there are challenges but teachers adapt.
From the article:
> The next time a teacher complains about AI cheating, ask: If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student? And then we can replace it with education and work that actually matters.
While this might be more true of "factoid based classes" (such as geography) - it completely misses the point of subjects where students actively benefit from struggling through the act of the craft itself. (writing, music, foreign languages, etc.)