[nradov]

I sympathize with the instructors to an extent, but the reality is that LLMs will be a pervasive part of life going forward. Schools need to completely reinvent their curriculum around that new reality. It's going to be a painful process for instructors accustomed to the old way of teaching.

[silver_silver]

The reality is that it’s not possible to learn if one offloads the work itself to an LLM

[riknos314]

A more accurate phrasing is: It's significantly less likely that one learns the portion of the work they offload to an LLM.

A random anecdote is that most of the people I know who went very far in theoretical math are relatively poor at basic mental arithmetic, because they always think in the abstract and offload addition and multiplication to the calculator. It doesn't mean they can't do it, they just aren't as practiced or as fast at it.

[Forgeties79]

The difference is that at one point they could do basic arithmetic. They went through the fundamentals/building blocks to get where they are currently. Getting weaker at something is not the same as never having to put in the effort to learn it in the first place. Just because they’re not particularly good at it anymore doesn’t mean they don’t understand how arithmetic fundamentally works (which would be incredibly concerning). They can look at a problem on a piece of paper and completely understand what it means.

Also, they are leaning on a calculator, a specific tool with a proven use that literally everyone knows how to use. LLM’s are glorified beta tests where the VC-backed companies are begging the rest of us to figure out the billion dollar application for them. It doesn’t even remotely compare from a utility standpoint. I don’t need to promise you what a calculator will eventually do when it gets better or convince you of their usefulness. It is self evident and consistent

[varjag]

That's just a poor analogy. A better one would be with lobotimized people doing math.

[novok]

Just like how you significantly increased the difficulty of exams in "open book" exams in the past where the only way to pass the open book exam was to know the material well, you similarly need to increase the difficulty of other work where it won't matter if you have an LLM, because you won't pass without knowing your shit either!

[Maken]

The problem is that only works at the advanced courses. However people need to learn the basics before they reach that level, specially when they are starting and are in many regards below the LLM's baseline.

[Forgeties79]

Blue books.

Need to type? Computer labs (“test taking labs” idk) are back baby. Simple machines, no Internet.

Pretty sure that solves 90% of the testing problem. If somebody is overly reliant on LLM’s and refuses to learn, they’ll pay with their grades on the big assignments. Bummer for teachers who don’t love blue books, but I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to sniff out LLMs and constantly mistrusting your students.

[intended]

Says who?

Your work will be ‘graded’ by other humans who don’t know what they are talking about, or an LLM which will assume the median answer is correct?

[BarryMilo]

They learn if they have to, like we always did. In-person exams (proctored) are good for testing that.

[shermanyo]

Calculators were a part of life when I was studying math, but we used a pencil and paper because the answer wasn't the point, learning and practicing was.

[musicale]

> It's going to be a painful process for instructors accustomed to the old way of teaching.

Going back to the old(er) way of teaching may be a very good idea.