The AI zombification of universities
thenewcritic.com
thenewcritic.com
If you penalize people who use AI but in the process have learned the required information you make the problem even worse.
These problems are all because of a culture that favours the measurement over what is being measured.
Spot on. I am teenager going to college soon and I feel like the same way about the education system (and in extension, the job market but I suppose that the job market might be more understanding probably over all of it), part of my comment was as follows.
I do feel a bit like coding/a lot of fun-ness out of life is also like this, quantified, measured, transactional (posting for social-media?) [as I wonder if I am writing this comment for hackernews karma or relevant discussion talking points..]
This feels to me the most irreversible consequence because it might be hard for the generation (myself included) to see value in non-measurable things as everything has to be measured and transactional-ized.
(...) I would like for humanity to be more nuanced and less measured but more varied (grey rather than black or white) but I feel like that there is enough noise on the internet that maybe even this ends up becoming noise and I am not sure if anyone who might benefit from reading this actually does end up reading it.
From one of my comments that I had written sometime ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559013
Hear, hear!
What other kind of culture is there? A culture of not measuring?
Many people are going to college primarily to make more money in their adult life, the actual learning is secondary. If you're already well-off or just don't care, you can still get the education for its own sake.
The issue is that we've created a perverse incentive to get a college degree.
For almost all of history, higher education has been a luxury good for the rich, including the Greek city states. There have been a few exceptions, most notably European countries with tax funded schools, but even those are primarily pumping out degrees used for chasing jobs.
What we got instead was a regression to aristocracy, where critical social resources of all kinds were enclosed and captured by capital and financialisation.
The result is a lot of very broken systems, education being just one.
Universities became primarily about administration of property and income, and the educational element has become a form of marketing to attract money (and bodies) so the rest could function.
And now we're on the edge of the next stage, which isn't "What is education for?" but "What are humans for?"
We used to know. Or at least we used to believe we knew.
Now we don't any more.
PS: I get all the idealistic mulling about how universities should be these utopian centers for the voluntary knowledge study and collaboration and the only result should be merit based. But real world doesn't work like that. If a country wants to have professional chemists or say welders for example, it must force kids through a lot of boring and hard mandatory study for years. Humanity didn't invent anything better yet, sorry.
How does anything scale if you don't know how good or bad it is?
How good is your kids school? How good is your business's supplier? Is this restaurant worth eating at? Am I getting underpaid? Etc
It's declaring that you will buy the fastest car you see today and then someone delivering one from low earth orbit.
favouring measurement
I'm not saying every method of measuring or every metric is equal, but there is no way to seriously engage with something without measuring it...?
The alternative is... what... vibes? Anecdotes? Taking the salesman at their word? Trusting that people just do the right thing all the time?
It's been a lost battle for decades, then.
so, the primary function of going to school is to get a job, not for self enrichment.
It's a shit show everywhere.
It doesn’t help that a lot of desirable fields are comically out of date at the academic instructional level anyway.
Would you honestly tell an aspiring software engineer that your typical computer science degree will teach them much about wielding computers in a cutting edge way?
If I were to list the top 5 things I got from university, knowledge wouldn’t make the cut and were I to do it again, I would certainly attend less class.
You can argue about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but the ship sailed long ago. CS undergrad degrees are about training software engineers, not about training computer scientists.
Maybe 10–20% would quit for that reason. There would be more attrition if you could get common jobs (such as teacher or nurse) that currently require a degree but don't pay that well without formal education.
Most people don't care that much about money. Sure they would like to have more money, but it's not the primary factor that drives their major life decisions. People are generally more interested in stable careers that pay their bills and seem like something they could continue doing until retirement.
“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library."
- Will Hunting
Having gone to university in Germany, there are glimpses of this ideal, but they're mostly faint memories enshrined on faded plaques around the campus. I did have an old geezer prof (90+ years old) that went to the very same university over half a century ago and showed us his diploma: greek, latin, humanities, ... for a technical diploma, no less!
I do still cringe a little when we get newjoiners fresh out of university proudly proclaiming "Yeah, no can do, we didn't learn that at university". Yes, obviously, university is not an apprenticeship. You learn how to learn and then apply that to unknown-to-you problems. Oddly enough ChatGPT seems to have brought a change to that mindset, but Im not sure if it did so for the better.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
Student doesn't need a specialized laboratory to learn things.
Maybe liberal arts students and programmers can self-educate at a public library but many STEM fields cannot.
It’s a movie, let’s go back to reality.
You’re paying to be surrounded by smart kids that will ensmarten you too and for access to the school’s career networks.
- Surrounded by other kids who have access to the same internet you do
- Access to the school's career networks (LinkedIn)
For some reason in discussions like this, things are always framed as if everyone is going to Yale.
Everyone I know including myself, went to college because that is just what you were supposed to do. That was my mom's dream for me to get a degree and I didn't want to disappoint my mom.
I am sure there were really smart kids in my high school that were figuring out post graduate network strategy but that was hardly the majority.
I even had a friend that dropped out of high school that ended up going to community college. He wasn't exactly figuring out the eigenvector centrality of the nodes of his general studies classmates.
As a result of this social pressure, people do tend to go off the rails when there (having fun) very few give a fck about studying - who cares, there's no reward for getting anything beyond 60-70%.
Career networks? Hahaha. Very few benefitted from that.
Once again, I went to a top 3 ranked uni on many league tables worldwide.
If you're paying and it isn't for a new campus building with your family's name on it, then you're not going to have access to those things at all.
Suuuuure, you're going to be able to access some sort of 'career' network. You'll be able to find amazing and high-paying jobs such as... um... uh...
AI isn't the issue as much how AI is used. Passive use of any tech, including social media, and now AI is lazy and has poor outcomes.
Aligning AI use with the goals of all sides, and not just one side getting paid, or just one side graduating could look different.
Most people attend higher education to access opportunity to improve their lives, overwhelmingly for a career and earning.
The idea of higher education teaching "learning how to think" is perhaps a relic of the origin of some universities which didn't historically do STEM, and focused on things like liberal arts, which in turn often had the support of coming from a privileged background, or financial safety net.
STEM money and funding though, attached a lot of traditional post secondaries to do that as well.
It's perfectly acceptable to expect higher education of any kind to have you ready to grow and earn more in better suited opportunities. Not enough educational institutaions don't publish their % of students who graduate in the area that they started in, and also the % of graduates who find their next step, career wise, etc, in 6-12 months of education.
Universities can be good at buying things to maintain the status quo and past. The issue with AI based software is it must actually keep pace. The tooling in this space does not seem to be.
Imagine software being bought and sold by both parties nodding.
I think that's the presumption that might be at the heart of the problem.
People have come to believe that their lives are improved by having more things instead of making themselves better.
>The idea of higher education teaching "learning how to think" is perhaps a relic
I worry that this is might have been a causal step involved in producing the current state of the world.
Except it's actually worse than that because the big AI providers with billions on the line are actively encouraging their users to use their services as easy buttons. If they weren't, Googlebook wouldn't have a Magic Cursor/Clippy as a Service feature that suggests using Gemini when you jiggle your cursor over something, and Google Docs wouldn't insert a "Write for me?" CTA when you stop typing.
Why shouldn't universities switch to examinations where no technology (apart from say calculators) are allowed; and this is strictly enforced? This was certainly the norm when I went to university.
I agree that A.I. trivializes (or changes how you approach) a lot of take home work; but people who wanted to cheat could more or less always do so for that to some degree. I guess it makes it easier to do so; however my expectation would be a greater reliance or weighting on in person examinations as a response; as opposed to a normalization of cheating.
One way in which A.I. could be seen as contributing to this is that it is devaluing the importance of what were seen as 'intellectual' pursuits; as we now have automation for them that is at the very least often surface level effective for undergraduate work.
EDIT: I meant writing in blue books before this era of copying words out of the claude app on your phone
We were deducted points for trivial syntax mistakes.
If these stories I keep hearing are true, then university programs have really taken a nose dive recently. This isn’t a “back in my day” thing, but within the past 5 years.
The pace of the purported decline makes me question if some of these stories are sensationalist. But I don’t know, I keep hearing about them.
> Surely you don't think that the details of a particular written language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam?
Computer science is the science of computing. Programming languages are the language used to implement computer science. Therefore you would expect that students accurately use the programming language to answer questions about computing. Seems reasonable to me.
Quite literally an "implementation detail."
Some portion of computer science education needs to be practical (implementation details), while some portion needs to be pure computer science (pseudo code).
Obviously projects are a good way to measure implementation details, but they are too easily cheated. Every class I took had exams as 80% or more of the grade. Not every class expected accurate syntax on exams, but most expected code rather than pseudo code (typically C).
Otherwise your suggestion makes sense.
And if we are talking about the various AI strategies people have where they have LLMs talking to LLMs to come up with whatever gooblyguck, are the poor souls who've been asked to come up with the AI class for the department going to know any of these strategies themselves? Are these strategies even going to be sustainable going forward after VC is no longer subsidizing tokens?
Generally, i wasn't allowed a calculator in university.
Some of these AI chatters may become oncologists.
You're not supposed to make more money, or be happier, or really become anything other than a better version of yourself.
I wonder if they still do this.
UChicago should be pretty uniquely positioned to address the problem of AI writ large. They already require a full year of each philosophy, literature, and history (all through primary sources). This "Core" should already be fairly AI-proof, given they are primarily small-group, discussion-driven courses; oral exams, in-class essays, or even graded discussions should be straightforward adaptations.
And yet, the university shifted towards professionalism before AI ("training a mind for the workforce" rather than "the good life").
Already, this transition did what the author observes AI is doing. I would hardly believe someone who cheats through an econ/stats major is less educated - if only through osmosis - than someone who honestly completes Business Economics.
And so I wonder - if the damage of AI is primarily instrumental to the broader trend of hyper-professionalism, what damage has it actually done?
If we automate away the signal to companies "yes, I can do stats for you," does that free students to focus more on the _less_ professional aspects of education?
Sure, it undercuts credentialism, making the "piece of paper" near worthless - but if our aim of education is just to "be better," should that not give us hope?
Otherwise what signal does “prominent family and graduated from Harvard” have over just “prominent family”?
The credential was certainly something - a more easily understood distillation of the of connections and status that got you there. But that's not exactly professional the way a degree in Business is.
Besides, were there not other high-minded notions that underpinned that credential - ideas of self-development and virtuous leadership? And more crass notions of polish and status? Were these not the self-justifications of these elites, made manifest through the institutions?
As a side note - I do strongly suspect elite schools will bring these ideas back. If not for virtue, for necessity - as schools seek to self-justify in ways that go beyond the dollars they risk losing.
But I was referring to happiness more generally as enjoyment, joy, satisfaction - that type of thing.
And in that case - there are plenty of ways being better = less happy. Eg if I were to sacrifice myself to save my family, then that’s the best version of me, but I’d be pretty dang unhappy about it.
And if I want to do something interesting I need the skills and knowledge which are learned at a college level.
Capitalism is not a new evil, you're absolutely right. It's just the system that, according to our current framework, came after feudalism, which came after something else.
the point is that actually seeing the changes in systems as consequences of massive technological change is likely directionally correct and it is not clear whether current capitalist logic survives the AI era.
The actual tasks being done have always been done even if the technologies used to do the work have changed and the work itself looks a little different. Our base needs have not changed. We are the same apes bound by dopamine. The functionality we require is pretty old. There is probably little we experience that is truly "new" compared to what one might experience in a classical civilization.
Capitalism is far more ancient than feudalism. Phoenicians were famous capitalists, likewise most any group of people involved in trade. Trade and accumulation of capital representing labor is ancient.
"Capitalism in its modern form emerged from agrarianism in England, as well as mercantilist practices by European countries between the 16th and 18th centuries. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century established capitalism as a dominant mode of production, characterized by factory work, and a complex division of labor. "
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
This would satisfy the modern interpretation of capitalism as well as the ancient Phoenician traders engaging in real time free market price discovery when on trade voyages. Trade has been complex for a very long time. Consider the famous complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir. These men were clearly capitalists little different than the commodity traders of today. They probably did not do their own fishing either, leaving that for the fishermen, focusing on copper and perhaps other commodities profiting off arbitrage and using that to pay for their survival.
Not really, you need cooperation with other people in this complex world to live. No necessarily a job. You could be self-employed or a member of a cooperative or an elected official.
But yeah, the capitalist default is to have a job, sure.
> And if I want to do something interesting I need the skills and knowledge which are learned at a college level.
Not really, no. You need the skills and knowledge and for some professions you do need the official certificate of education and for a subset of those that's actually warranted, because you cannot get your hands on the training other ways. Doctors kinda need the official system, self-taught appendectomy would not be ideal. English literature? Not so much.
Trades can pay very well and frequently require nothing more than on the job training.
You think you need college for the same reason you equate "job" with survival. These are not universal truths, not even in capitalist hellscape America. It might be harder but it is in no way a requirement. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you.
Ugh, capitalism.
Apart from entry-level texts, what discipline are you thinking of? Pretty much all my after-freshman-year undergrad texts contained debates.
a) This is about universities, not "college" b) The University teaches you critical thinking, not how to learn "textbook items". It's not vocational training for upper middle class. It's for building and developing citizens who can think critically.
Schools will adapt, as they have already, by weighing grading more towards in-class quizzes and tests . I think the humanities will continue to struggle, but I see the AI boom making STEM more relevant, even if AI can automate a lot of code or math.
The piece discusses blue book tests where students were still cheating with their phones providing AI responses
That's telling in and of itself.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201734274/chess-hans-niemann...
More precisely, the people motivated enough to actually do the online MIT version were often already on a high-performance trajectory, and for the people who were not, few people took the online credential seriously, despite whatever skills they acquired.
Logic 101 changed the clarity of my thinking markedly.
I'm not sure if an ivy league education proves anything anymore other than that you're connected.
They are vouching for the intelligence, knowledge acquisition and work ethic of their graduates. If they lose that signal, they lose the ability to gate keep prestige and status.
Therefore one must attend university to stand a chance of greatness.
Have tests.
Supervise said tests to make sure people don't cheat.
That's how it worked when i was in university. Admittedly maybe that is easier in the sciences than humanities, but still, it seems doable. Cheating isn't a new phenomenon it just got cheaper and easier.
(Cheating was already rampant in many classes 20 years ago when I was in college, I can't imagine what it's like now.)
> I don’t think she was laughing two years later when I was TAing the class and we observed a fairly distinct gap of about 40 percentage points between the take-home test and the one administered in-person.
40pp is massive. Take homes are pretty much dead at that point. And not just in schools, but also for interviews. I don’t see how you can get a meaningful signal, it’s guaranteed they will be made using AI.
It becomes apparent really fast which students just delegated the work to AI.
Of course it’s also much more effort for the instructor.
Then again, with LLMs, learning to answer those questions is probably easier now than ever.
I haven't applied for a job in a decade, so I am utterly clueless on the current landscape.
Not looking forward to interviewing people in the coming years. I went through a good amount of recruiting over the past year+ and it was already frustrating to see how much AI people were using when asked explicitly to limit usage (because that kills the signals we were looking for)
For me when I teach, no laptops or phones in class along with in-class handwritten paper quizzes on course readings and concepts has helped a lot.
To the majority of students, they seem quite laser focused on acquiring the degree with the right grades so that they can maximize their chance of a job after university (apart from the personal element of partying and having a boy/girl-friend etc.). The primary utility of the university to students is the credentialing, and secondarily the structure to the learning program, but otherwise the books themselves suffice to teach.
Perhaps we should move more training to technical institutes and people can come out with the knowledge of how to operate this or that thing. The problem is that everyone will know that the smarter student has gone for the higher-end university. The credentialing then works not because of the program but because of the selection that the university can do. Okay, so the whole thing continues to make sense even if AI zombifies everything.
> Whatever your conception of the modern university, whether grand or grim, understanding the current landscape of campus-wide AI use, much less its intensification, should destroy it.
There's a video of the student Andre Mai talking about it. He was a computational systems biology student who was encouraged to use AI in his research and was summarizing work from his machine learning lab. Video - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rswUgIfj1YU He seems pretty enthusiastic and unzombified.
It makes me skeptical of the authors "cancer on our culture that threatens to turn a generation of promising young Americans into a class of drooling morons" thesis.
Ouch.
I hadn’t thought of this. Every school district and university tied into centralized AI inherently undermined its ability to decide how its kids are to be taught.
Because my student path is non-linear (vs just following a life script), I may be a bit weird / not the average student, but it's especially true for me that I'm very intentional about actually learning the things I sign up for classes to learn.
My point is that I'm not taking classes just for the motions or to create slop. With that context, here is how AI helped me very specifically in a recent linear algebra course:
1. I was able to prompt very specific questions, usually audits of my work, in ways that provided responses that were more like a socratic tutor and not a cheating parter. In this way I did not need to bother my professor as much or seek out a tutor, when I was stuck. But I also didnt shortcut my way to answers. I was intentionally limiting the AI assistance to finding small errors or jogging my memory about steps missed or next steps.
2. I vibe coded a note taking web application (started as a chrome plugin for notion) so that I could shortcode and pick math symbols while my other arm was full holding my newborn (yes I'm a dad too). This has since evolved into a full-on science writing platform that I love whether or not anyone else ever uses it (though I am trying to turn it into a business). Maybe I actually ended up adding more work to my math class but it added a layer to the learning (what math symbols are needed, what are typical patterns for this subject, etc) that I think helped with my overall absorbtion of the subject.
I dont know if #2 is transposable to other students or to other subjects but I imagine there is some version of a double major yet to be created that is Core Subject + "how to properly use AI to learn (including vibe coding tools to help yourself and other students)".
There are many other smaller ways AI can be used to help learning (flash cards, generated quizzes, etc) that are oft mentioned but that articles like this gloss over.
Having said that, I loved reading this (so well written it could not be AI despite the emdashes), and especially appreciate any mention of "The Whispering Earring", which is one of my spinning tops to remind me to remain vigilant of my cognitive health despite my almost complete embrace of AI.
But I was able to AI generate an audited and cleaned up 2 pager based strictly on my notes (https://github.com/stonly/public_share/blob/main/linalg_exam...)
Word of caution: A few versions ago of the models (and myself), I learned a hard lesson about generating reference guides. My physics exam performance paid the price. So this is not without risk as with anything AI, and your prompt mileage may vary.
I don't regret getting my degree (back in 2009), but I think requiring a person to have one is a dumb job requirement.
Frankly, we shouldn't have so many people going to university in the first place. There's a lot of people it's just utterly wasted on, and it drags down the entire apparatus as a result. In a sane society we'd have much more apprenticeships, vocational training, etc.
My university CS program didn't even teach programming in any of the major classes, it was assumed you'd learn on your own or by doing one of the optional workshops.
There's a lot of stuff taught in academic CS that you simply won't learn on the job, or if you do, it won't be as rigorous and you'll be missing the fundamentals.
The mandatory "practical" courses were often much worse. For example, I studied relational algebra on my own, plus a few chapters from Kleppmann's Data-Intensive Applications book, and it was painful to realise how shallow it made the mandatory database course look.
I agree that CS should not be mere job training. I think many CS programs are neither rigorous enough to feel like math/science and prepare you for proper academic work, nor practical enough to be good vocational training. They sit in a bad middle ground, where academics teach industry-lite.
With rampant AI cheating it's no longer a guarantee of any of those.
You can cheat as much as you want on homework, but it won't help you on supervised written tests. At some point you have to sit down, unaided, and show that you can solve the problems yourself. So I do not see how AI substantially weakens the signaling value of a degree, at least in systems where the degree is backed by in-person written assessment. It may make take-home coursework less meaningful, but that was already the weakest part of the signal.
In this world, what are the benefits of a humanist education? The only reason we care so much about education is that it's how to determine merit in meritocratic societies, and therefore a key part in how people gain social status. In a world where AI does all the knowledge work and robots do all the physical work, with an 'elect few' owning everything and everyone else in a 'permanent underclass', why do the elect few even need to keep the permanent underclass alive?
The other problem of course is attention span due to social-media erosion.
The big tech has really done a number on society already and they’re just getting started.
One option… They can do homework just test them every week in class. Homework doesn’t count for grade anymore. But test questions based upon homework.
Another… kids do reading at home in textbook, then work together in class to finish. Adjust hours accordingly.
There’s a very interesting problem space here though, to “disrupt” education by going back in time and applying a modern spin on education.
Like we'd been doing for literally hundreds of years.
The part that is more difficult is take-home work, and I think the solution is that instead of being something that you turn in for credit, it needs to move to being more of a chance to practice for in-person exams.
What about essays? I've taught classes where students had to write essays in class, in person. On paper, with a pen (this may no longer be allowed on many campuses because of access and perceived fairness reasons, which IMO is a shame, but it is what it is). I think the traditional assignment of "write a 15 page paper on XYZ" is probably done. Instead students will have to prepare to write an essay in class by reading the source material (books, papers, etc) and converse with AIs that are hopefully not hallucinating, to get an understanding of the material and then come to class and be prepared to write about it.
It's a new world, but one we can adapt to.
The only thing that mattered were the exams, be it pen and paper or coding/electronics labs, in person and proctored. No matter how much slop I could have access to back in the day I would have failed the same subjects I did.
Do it on the classroom or it doesn't count
(Or at least they used to.)
There are problems: Having students attend lectures is great but they have to work with the material and prove they understand it - how to do that without homework? I'm sure there are ways. Have them work in a building full of computers cut-off from the internet maybe, but how to keep them from using their phones?
Another option is just severe comprehensive testing in heavily inviglated rooms long after they finished the class involving the material to prove they know it. Perhaps you could do this for the first few years of knowledge in a discipline and then assume the student actually is serious and take the leash off after they passed the tests. I know some disciplines already do this kind of thing, even before AI. Basically everyone has to pass a bar-exam type thing, even if they're studying art - but things like art can't really be condensed into an exam and it would certainly restrict and narrow what can be taught and learned, that's a big problem in my mind. Also what if there are new ideas in the study of physics and they can't really be taught because the exam is too difficult to change quickly? What if there's a big split in the philosophy of buisness, but the exam only asks about one side of the split? What if you have an ingenious professor who wishes to talk about a new branch of philosophy he's created - not on the exam though.
Edit: I guess if professors designed their own exams, instead of some distant exam-comittee it would alleviate most of my concerns about them.
Tests. Many of my university courses only graded on tests. They strongly encouraged you to do the homework to better understand the material, but didn't consider homework completion when calculating your grade.
Consider that universities are educating adults who are -often- paying to be there. If we assume competent course design and instruction, if an adult chooses to not work on the material until they understand it, then the only person they're harming is themselves... which -as an adult- is a thing that they're usually fully entitled to do.
I think that watching the lecture (rather than reading a faithful transcription and referring to the video or photographs for the parts that require visual aids) would absolutely have destroyed me, but I'm not sure.
Actually, give them internet why not. But they have to use a 56k modem. Mwhaaha
Unfortunately that's way more expensive to do.
I studied maths, and spending time alone trying to solve problems and redoing the proofs from memory was important for my learning.
I don't think I'd have learned as much had those moments been replaced with more in class discussion.
Internship / coop programs at places like Waterloo already look a bit like this.
If we want to teach students to use AI, it should just be a separate course, not shoving it in every possible nook and cranny to the point it is teacher AI talking with student AI with light supervision from both AI handlers
The reason it doesn't happen for the rest of the system is scaling. The US awards about 60k PhDs per year, compared to about 2M bachelors. There simply are not enough faculty and it is not realistic to hire enough (if there are even enough qualified people in existence)
And that's ignoring all of the problems with "not giving out grades" or "ending credentialism" - I guess people are supposed to just get hired on vibes?
I'm not going to interview some guy with no work experience and no credentials for an engineering position. I will gladly interview someone with no work experience but a relevant degree or bootcamp.
Will Universities still be centers of knowledge and exploration? or will that be more disseminated through society, and so Universities not so important?
What courses will exist? Are those vastly different from today's courses?
Computer-assisted instruction been amazing unsuccessful. Why is that?
And, anyway, the point the article is trying to make is obvious. What's absolutely not obvious, and what it sheds very little light on, is what the University is going to look like in 10 years. Not what it should look like, but what it is most likely to look like.
Mostly like they look like now, probably. With slightly more strictly enforced rules around exam.
I fail to see why it won't be like that.
I'm confident this is human.
Today, the demonic vice of the old is not that they are hard and demanding on the youth — instead they do not demand enough from us, and they cannot quite believe that we have not lived up to the little they have demanded. They think too well of our generation.
Without defending the quality of the rest of the essay, it's a great start. LLMs today could never match it.
Modern education is like that, even before AI. Check this https://www.jstor.org/stable/25006902
Higher education needs reform more intensive than a simple defense against LLMs (as does the legal system and profession, as does the software engineering field, as does the field of psychology/psychiatry, as does-).
Evidence of people complaining about a thing isn’t evidence of the thing per se.