Hacker News Reader

Comment by singpolyma3 | Hacker News Reader

> For example, the evidence favors frequent low-stakes assessments with feedback (e.g., homework, quizzes) over few high-stakes ones (e.g., exams) – but AI is undermining practice in low-stakes settings and pushing us more toward exams.

Only because you're obsessed with being able to assign grades and fail cheaters.

View on HN

Or possibly because quizzes and homework are a good way to learn the material, but if students have the AI do it instead they won't learn.

No obsession required.

The students who want to learn aren't having the AI do it for them. And they will learn better in the evidence based system.

The ones who don't want to learn will cheat themselves of an education. This is their own problem and we shouldn't punish the actual students to catch these others.

Failing to catch the cheaters does punish the honest students, who in your approach get a worse GPA.

This is exactly what I said. The obsession with grades (GPA) over education is the cause here. Intentionally making the education worse in order to protect the grading system.

What is the point of learning something an AI can already do better than you? There are better methods of brain training.

The situation reminds me of what my teachers used to tell me. "Learning how to look up things in a book will be a skill you'll need all your live and you won't carry a calculator with you at all times when you are grown up." Both assumptions were proven wrong before I was even out of school.

If the only remaining value of education is "to become a well rounded person" then why waste your time on it? It used to be you went to university because that was the only place to get knowledge from. Which is also why it was dominated by the rich and powerful. These days university feels a lot like paper money. Everyone just pretends it has a real value and because everyone agrees, that's where the value comes from.

Okay why do we need literacy if we have such beautiful screen readers? Maybe because it's better when you actually absorb these fundamental skills rather than rely on a disability aid to relieve you of a self imposed handicap.

Practicality. It's more convenient to read door and street signs, restaurant menus, name badges, ticket machines etc. etc. without going through a screen reader.

It's little effort for a large benefit. But anything you learn past middle school in formal education is a moderate to large effort for a small to neglectable benefit. And you'll forget it anyway if it is uninteresting and not useful in your daily life.

Anything interesting or useful in your daily life, you'll pick up by yourself even without formal education.

This same logic applies to all the upstream education. It's convinient to have a more limited calculator in your own brain, or better yet, the ability to simply see numerical properties factors, in a way a calculator doesn't replace. It's good when you can yourself understand the physics of everyday systems, or perform useful calculations about them. And if your work is indeed tied to it, it's good to know basic semiconductor physics, even if the ordinary person has a million more immediately useful things to study.

Knowledge is not a tool for answering the absolutely minimum questions you encounter in daily life, but a way of seeing the world. Reading allows you to use language in ways you could not imagine with spoken word alone, just as math or physics or computer science enable new ways of thinking inaccessible without intense study.

I don't disagree that this is all useful to have. My point of contention is that the effort required is not worth the time investment if you are going to forget about it in a few years anyway because you never needed it in your daily life.

Our brains can't hold infinite amounts of data and a lot of information will become inaccessible if not used regularly. This is also why most of us do not speak twelve different languages, despite this being a supremely useful skill that is relatively easy to pick up compared to semiconductor physics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com