[throw46365]

> The same goes with human TAs that are extensively used in undergrad introductory programming classes. They can also be unreliable in many cases.

Ehh. Those TAs, if they feel they might be wrong, can consult the lecturer/professor. And if they feel they might be wrong, they can just say so.

IMO there is little to no comparison between a bad TA and a confidently-wrong LLM (having been a TA who knew to consult the professor if I felt I was not on solid ground).

LLMs have no experience with teaching, they have no empathy for students grappling with the more challenging things, and they can gain no experience with teaching. Because it's not about spewing out text. It's about guiding and helping students with learning.

For example: can an LLM sympathise or empathise with a cybernetics student who is grappling with the whole conceptual idea of laplace transforms? No. It can only spew out text with just the same level of investment as if it was writing a silly song about cats in galoshes on the Moon.

I wish we were not in this "well humans also..." justification phase.

It is genuinely disrespectful to actual real people and it's founded on projection.

And in this case, it will also shut down the pipeline of academic progression if TAs are no longer hired.

Why are we doing this to academia when the better approach would be giving TAs better training in actual teaching? More-senior academics doing this kind of research work is absolutely riddled with moral hazard: it's not your jobs immediately on the line.

ETA: sooner or later, people in the generative AI market should really consider not just saying that we should talk about the ethical implications, but actually taking a stand on them. It's not enough to produce something that might cause a problem, rush it into production and just say "we might want to talk about the problems this might cause". Ethics are for everyone, not just ethicists.

[hombre_fatal]

Meanwhile almost every TA I had at uni didn't really want to be there. They were there for their PhD, not as a professor in training which would have made your position more understandable. And to boot they rarely spoke English very well. I had a few TAs that I understood so poorly that I stopped attending their labs.

The TA system feels like a hack where university gets to get free labor out of PhD students, but the undergrads suffer for it. I don't think there's much to glamorize. Nor do I think there's much to salvage from the days where you needed to attend office hours to get help. You see it as this critical human experience in uni but I don't.

That said, half my professors at uni also prob didn't want to teach. They were there for research.

[throw46365]

> They were there for their PhD, not as a professor in training which would have made your position more understandable.

Right. Not all TAs become professors. But at a first approximation all professors have TA experience; it's generally their first experience of teaching.

I was paid for my time as a TA, in the UK. It would be illegal for them not to pay.

[majeedkazemi]

LLMs are tools. They're not everything. Yes, they can't sympathize or empathize. But if they can help a student to be more productive and learn at the same time, then I'm all in for designing them properly to be used in such educational contexts... "as an additional tool."

We need both humans and AI. But there are problems with both, so that's why they can hopefully complement each other. Humans might have limited patience, availability, etc. and AI lacks empathy, and can be over-confident.

> Why are we doing this to academia when the better approach would be giving TAs better training in actual teaching?

Sure, that is a fantastic idea and some researchers have explored it.

But, what's wrong with doing exploratory research, in a real-world deployment? In the paper we describe both where CodeAid failed and where students and educators found it useful, in a very honest way.

[throw46365]

> We need both humans and AI.

Genuine question: Why do we need both humans and AI? What's the evidence base for this statement?

I feel this is another thing that proponents state as if it's unchallengeable fact, an all-progress-is-good thing.

I question this assertion. People have become all too comfortable with it.

(Personal opinion: I don't think teaching needs AI at all, and if it does, a traditional simple expert system with crafted answers would still be better. I think there's a staggering range of opportunities for improving teaching materials that don't involve LLMs, and they are all being ignored because of where the hot money goes.)

[majeedkazemi]

I think my stance is pretty clear about "utilizing" AI in educational settings. We absolutely don't need AI the same way we need air to breathe. But AI could potentially provide some solutions (and create new problems or have adverse effects as well), so why not explore it properly to find out where it works and where it doesn't?

[batch12]

The statement is a false statement to begin with. We don't have AI yet. Maybe when we have software that is truly intelligent, we can let it teach us. Until then I see this more as a buggy interactive textbook and agree with the author's description of it as a tool and disagree with the idea of it as a teacher.

[nucrow]

Imagine we could, with the snap of a finger, come up with an AI tutor that is objectively better than human TAs. Better as in: between 2 groups of 10,000 students, those with AI tutors do better on perfomance metrics 95% of the time than those students with human tutors. Would you be opposed to replacing human tutors then?

If your answer is yes, (in some flavor of "protecting and helping the jobs of those who teach), I would argue your ethics are focused on the wrong group. Teaching is for students to learn, not for teachers to have jobs.

We don't have said technology yet, but it's reasonable to think we can get close. If there's a good chance to improve how well students can learn, I don't think "teachers don't appreciate it" is a good reason not to do it.

[throw46365]

> Would you be opposed to replacing human tutors then?

Yes.

> If your answer is yes, (in some flavor of "protecting and helping the jobs of those who teach), I would argue your ethics are focused on the wrong group. Teaching is for students to learn, not for teachers to have jobs.

OK. But your framing here projects upon me the idea that I'm solely concerned about replacing jobs, in order for your argument to succeed. (Though again, that is the cold-rationalist AI zeitgeist[0]: why should people have jobs when an AI can do it?)

It elides the possibility that it is inherently better to learn from a real person, who has invested time and effort into teaching you. What is the point of higher education in particular if you are not learning, at some point, from people who are directly adjacent to cutting edge thinking?

> We don't have said technology yet, but it's reasonable to think we can get close. If there's a good chance to improve how well students can learn, I don't think "teachers don't appreciate it" is a good reason not to do it.

Well then. I can't argue with this, if you think it's OK to take humanity out of teaching. I think — perhaps feel — you are so wrong that I can barely even string the words together to explain. And that is an unbridgeable divide.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/05/opena... or https://archive.ph/AL81B

'In response to one question about AGI rendering jobs obsolete, Jeff Wu, an engineer for the company, confessed, “It’s kind of deeply unfair that, you know, a group of people can just build AI and take everyone’s jobs away, and in some sense, there’s nothing you can do to stop them right now.” He added, “I don’t know. Raise awareness, get governments to care, get other people to care. Yeah. Or join us and have one of the few remaining jobs. I don’t know; it’s rough.”'

[nucrow]

> It elides the possibility that it is inherently better to learn from a real person, who has invested time and effort into teaching you.

I did elude it, for the sake of the argument. If it turns out that in fact human tutoring is fundamentally better, then there's of course no point in using an inferior system (sweeping accesibility and other concerns under the rug). Go humans, if we're better!

> What is the point of higher education in particular if you are not learning, at some point, from people who are directly adjacent to cutting edge thinking?

For the subset that do research, this matters a lot. But for most everyone else looking for a better job, it's not really relevant.

> Well then. I can't argue with this, if you think it's OK to take humanity out of teaching. I think — perhaps feel — you are so wrong that I can barely even string the words together to explain. And that is an unbridgeable divide

I appreciate your candidness, and perhaps it's true that we may just not be able to agree. For what it's worth, my bet is tutors' quality will improve, rather than them getting displaced. My point however is: I want my kid to learn as best as possible. If that turns out to be with a robot, I'm not making my kid worse off to save some guy's job.