It's funny how people talk about "teaching" getting more difficult with LLMs.
Clearly teaching got a lot better, since we now have a new teaching tool at our use, the LLMs. It's evaluating that got harder, because students can use the same tool to cheat in traditional forms of evaluation.
If "teaching the students" means the same as "evaluating the students" to you, maybe you shouldn't teach in the first place.
Teaching is imo mostly about techniques that battle laziness. Teaching intrinsically motivated intelligent students has always been trivial. All progress in education is about scaling it to work for people who only reluctantly engage with the material.
Teaching and evaluation are of course not the same thing, but evaluation is an important part of teaching.
There is a mismatch between students’ overall desire to learn things and the moment-to-moment experience that learning is hard.
Even devoid of all the economic and social pressures that grades impose students would compromise their learning experience.
Ever regretted looking up the solution to a puzzle in a video game or sneaked a peak at the crossword puzzle solutions?
One of the hardest part of teaching is keeping students from self-sabotage.
Evaluation helps with that.
Beyond that evaluation is of course also useful just as feedback.
What you’re calling evaluating is a part of the learning process for the student, not just about confirming that the student knows the thing. LLMs are actively undermining learning in this way. There was useful friction which has been removed.
Motivation can come from many sources, not only grading, e.g. individual encouragement, exciting applications, day-to-day relevance, interest shown by peers. Also students can just be intrinsically motivated.
It may come in different styles. But what do you do with students who don’t have motivation beyond grading/punishment? Some people just do not have motivation unless somebody standing by them with a stick.
That outlook is way too bleak. As a person who has taught at universities for fifteen years and has run lots of open educational formats and infrastructure with other public institutions and citizen groups, my experience is the opposite. If anything, the desire to learn and curiosity are among the strongest common traits humans possess. Grades are just a tool and a proxy that most people working in formalized educational settings have to work with at specific points.
It’s not just evaluating. Students used to learn skills while doing an assignment. LLMing through assignments teaches copy-paste at best.
It’s like copy-paste Wikipedia presentations 2 decades ago. People used to learn things doing research for a project. Then suddenly it became copying off Wikipedia and people not even pre-reading what they copied into PPT.
> Besides, a lot of non-fiction just isn't that great. Many books should have been a blog post. These books are rarely a rewarding experience for me, unless it's from a rare combo of historian and good writer.
Many non-fiction books are essentially PR material for the author. They don't write these books, because they have interesting thoughts that are too complicated and long for a blog post, but because their career plan involves being some kind of a public intellectual and writing a book is a part of that. They often have a single idea, that in itself might be an interesting one, but it's simple enough that it could indeed be entirely fleshed out in a blog post or an essay rather than a book.
This is helped along by the number of people willing to cynically offer up a blurb, or even a glowing review, to something mediocre or seriously flawed that they may not even have read. I'm sure the blurbers think they're just doing someone a favour (and/or playing the game so that they will receive reciprocation), and the reviewers are probably less often crooked than simply busy/lazy, but it all goes to make it much harder for good, substantial work to stand out.
I read a bunch of pop psychology books (by supposedly respectably authors who were academic researches on this stuff) on child development when my kids were in that age. Weirdly, the author of this leaves out a completely relevant variable from the discussion: the child's age.
As far as I recall from my readings, daycare might be harmful for very small children (around age 2 and below), who are still very attached to their mothers. Above that, it is a matter of how large the group size is and how professional the daycare teachers are. Children below the age of 6 or so benefit from very small groups, because they don't yet have the social intelligence to navigate multi-person interactions. All children left on their own tend to develop anti-social behavioural patterns (such as taking toys from other by force, etc.), and a qualified daycare professional is supposed to watch for and weed out that kind of behaviour.
There doesn't need to be any kind of technical solution. If a telemarketer wants to sell something, they must declare the name of their company. The company name can be reported to police (or whatever authorities are going to handle this) who can then fine the telemarketers.
>The company name can be reported to police (or whatever authorities are going to handle this) who can then fine the telemarketers.
This kind of happens today, but I think the problem is too big. You'll need to employ thousands to process all the complaints and by the time you issue a fine, the company has closed and a new one has started.
Anti-spam measures work by increasing cost and friction for spammers, not by stopping them completely. A burner LLC costs more than a burner SIM card, so it's a step in the right direction.
In some countries, it is illegal to make unsolicited calls to a number that is on an official "do not call" list.
Any number on that list is effectively a honeypot. I guess you could even distribute an app that automates the whole process: put your number on the list, log incoming calls, aggregate the data and report them in batches large enough to catch the government's attention.
And if they don't declare the name of the company? There are a lot of shady people out there. Plenty of them will happily call and give a fake name, or just something vague that sounds important, like, "This is Rachel from cardholder services".
So it turns out we really do need a technical solution, which is unforgeable and easily traceable access to the telephone network. Plus robust enforcement of consumer laws, something wildly out of fashion in the US.
Although STIR/SHAKEN is frequently described as a "caller ID authentication technology", it does not authenticate any caller ID per se. Instead, it authenticates the originating carrier, but that solves a different problem. [...]
It critically relies on a set of trusted certificate authorities (CAs) to manage digital certificates. In the USA, several telecom companies were appointed by the FCC as the CAs. They serve as the root of the trust. All other telcos, must not only trust these CAs but also pay them for compliance with STIR/SHAKEN, typically based on a percentage of their annual revenue. The reliance on trusted third parties severely limits STIR/SHAKEN to work across borders.
> Plus robust enforcement of consumer laws, something wildly out of fashion in the US.
The act requires FCC referrals to DOJ for willful robocall fraud. In the half-decade since enactment, with billions of scam calls and billions of dollars in consumer losses, the FCC made less than a dozen referrals.
I'm sure that the phone operators will not be happy about such a blacklist: they sell those numbers. Furthermore, they profit from spam calls in several ways.
Same for online ads. Ads should take you to a landing page saying Google served it for ShadyGambling Inc, Enemystan/Enemypur and clicking further will take you to Play Store.
Most EU countries implemented registration of every mobile number with personal details and national id number. Yet in the same countries there exist entire office buildings with tens of people receiving salaries for spam/scam/cold calling, and they are fully anonymous?!
Here in Denmark there is no block list, but you have to explicitly opt-in to receiving telemarketing calls. By default, it's illegal to call you.
I never opt-in to anything. If I do get a call, I usually ask for the callers employee name and employee ID, their supervisors name and employee ID and the name of the company. Then I point out that it is illegal to call me and ask for them to get my name off their list.
It's been years since I've gotten any sort of telemarketing or survey call.
I assume ownership of the caller's number can be logged/checked.
I haven't had too much trouble with telemarketers lately but there is a crowdsourced app in France called Saracroche that can be easily installed on your phone and blocks spam numbers by becoming the caller id service. You can also use the app to report a number and help build the huge database.
> I assume ownership of the caller's number can be logged/checked.
Alas, last time I checked numbers were something that was announced in-band, so it could be trivially faked by the caller. But I'm not sure if that's still true.
Not in the domain at all but wasn't this the purpose of STIR/SHAKEN but the biggest blocker was that large telcos hadn't deployed it? I think Android and iOS dialer app show you whether there was Caller ID Verification done or not so you may be able to drop anything unverified.
In France, thanks to STIR/SHAKEN, this is not possible any more for the fixed phone numbering plans (and telemarketers have to register their phone numbers in a subset of this numbering plan). For mobile lines, this is still not 100% implemented due to the difficulty of handling roaming, but I think it is becoming efficient as I didn't have a telemarketer with a mobile number since a long time (they seem to hide their number now).
Alas, last time I checked numbers were something that was announced in-band, so it could be trivially faked by the caller. But I'm not sure if that's still true.
That's where we can actually use technical solutions though: businesses shouldn't be able to place calls without cryptographically signing their origination with a key derived from their business registration.
Phone calls are essentially end to end voip these days so we have the ability to deliver that metadata.
Again and again nerds coming from maths/CS/etc to finance are surprised to find that financial time series are actually impossible to predict. After spending almost a decade in finance now with a similar background, the arrogance of the "let's just throw in some neural network/whatever and be done with it" attitude now amuses me. After all, if it was easy - or even possible with any kind of effort - to predict (even within some error margins or probability) what the stock prices are tomorrow, anyone doing it would quickly become a billionaire or trillionaire. If the person could keep doing it, at some point they would own enough of the stock market so that their actions would affect the prices and whatever pattern they found would vanish.
Financial markets are not a natural phenomenon that exist unchanged regardless of whoever is observing them. Their dynamics continuously change in response to collective actions of all of the humanity.
Oil price changed quite a bit when the US attacked Iran. If you are trying to predict the price of oil, your model would have to be able to predict Trump ordering an attack on Iran. Does your model include a full simulation of the mind of the president of the United States (and every other person who have any kind of impact on the world events)? If not, then your time series forecasts are not going to be that great.
Which naturally begs the question whether the excess returns in finance (outside of services provided for liquidity matching, risk transformation, etc.) is not just exploiting inside information of one kind or another. If you have inside information, your time series forecasts are going to be excellent and no simulation is needed.
World is full of empty houses. It's just that people want to live in New York and not in some other place where housing is cheap or, occasionally, even free. And New York is already pretty full.
That's how it was maybe 100 years ago. Now PhD is just another bit of school work. Sometimes people manage to do really great PhD work, but most of the time it's pretty mediocre or straight garbage.
In some ways, people doing research now have it way more difficult than people of the past. They have hundreds of years worth of research to study before they are on top of things and making an original contribution that stands out among the huge amount of research that already exists is really hard. If we want to keep PhD as a proof of meaningful work, then we ought to lengthen the graduate studies considerably. How about a 10 year PhD program, at the end of which you can really say you have mastered the field?
In other words, Meta (excepting maybe the bought departments) has become just like any other traditional mega-corporation. Ugly, inefficient and disorganized, but terribly good at doing the one thing that makes it money.
Clearly teaching got a lot better, since we now have a new teaching tool at our use, the LLMs. It's evaluating that got harder, because students can use the same tool to cheat in traditional forms of evaluation.
If "teaching the students" means the same as "evaluating the students" to you, maybe you shouldn't teach in the first place.
reply