[CJefferson]

I'm a professor at uni, and this is what is happening -- many students are never really learning. Then they crash into exams at the end of term when they don't have their AI, and they bomb, I'm seeing failure rates like never before.

Now, part of me thinks 'is not letting students having AI like not letting them have a calculator'. On the other hand, if I just let the AI do the exam, well I don't really need the student at all do I?

[koonsolo]

When kids learn calculation, they indeed are not allowed to use a calculator.

Same is true for your field now. When kids learn things the AI already knows, it's clear they can't use the AI.

If you want them to become smarter than the AI, they will have to pass through a period where they are dumber than the AI, and it's clear at that point they can't use it.

AI raised the bar, that's all. But it's still a bar that can be passed with human intelligence, and your job is to get them past that.

[rogerrogerr]

> it's still a bar that can be passed with human intelligence

Can you expand on this?

[koonsolo]

As a developer becomes better, they become better than an LLM, being able to deal with more complex things than what an LLM can handle. Some people will not be able to pass it, but others will.

When there will ever be AGI (I don't think this can be achieved with the current architecture, it needs another AI breakthrough), then we might not be able to surpass it, much like chess currently.