I refuse to believe people are that dumb

I dont need my OS to be a challenge or a flex.

This… comment… its not a meme or a trope. I feel… l dont know what to feel or what to say. Can you please convert this to an image with text or at least make your comment seem like you are 100% certain about who needs to die??

Lemmy.

If you are making them aware they will fail by not reading the documentation, then its surprising they would continue to put that off. Using chatgpt is different than only being able to use chatgpt. Then again i was a kid once and kind of get it. Maybe banning it is the better option, as you say.

I thought it was scary enough when instructors would do “locked down” timed tests with short/essay answers. I cant imagine students thinking they’d be fine using chatgpt for stuff theyll need to applicably demonstrate.

I wonder if the drop out rate will increase for colleges due to stuff like this, or if students are majoring in more technical stuff more due to llm overconfidence.

Thanks for your responses!

Im asking about this individuals experience as a ta, not for an opinion on llms.

Oh interesting that they wouldnt need or want to hide that. When i use it i interpret every line of code and decide if its appropriate. If that would be too time consuming then i wouldnt use an llm. I would never deviate from the assignment criterion or the material covered by deferring to some obscure methodology used by an llm.

So i personally dont think its been bad for my education, but i did complete a lot of my education before llms were a thing.

Dont you guys test the students in ways to punish the laziness? I know you are just a ta, but do you think the class could be better about that? Some classes ive taken are terribly quality and all but encouraged laziness, and other classes were perfactly capable of cutting through the bullshit.

How do you know if it doesnt benefit a student? If their work is exceptional, do you assume they didnt use an LLM? Or do you not see any good code anymore?

Pavlov VR

I dont know what you are even trying to say

Is that better or worse?

History is watching you fly a military escort to the amazon and back for a photo op you dip

So they are moving away from general models and specializing them to tasks as certain kind of ai agents

It will probably make queries with those agents defined in a narrow domain and those agents will probably be much less prone to error.

I think its a good next step. Expecting general intelligence to arise out of LLMs with larger training models is obviously a highly criticized idea on Lemmy, and this move supports the apparent limitations of this approach.

If you think about it, assigning special “thinking” steps for ai models makes less sense for a general model, and much more sense for well-defined scopes.

We will probably curate these scopes very thoroughly over time and people will start trusting the accuracy of their answer through more tailored design approaches.

When we have many many effective tailored agents for specialized tasks, we may be able to chain those agents together into compound agents that can reliably carry out many tasks like we expected from AI in the first place.

Facebook memes… nice.

No?

Can we stop trying to generalize to this degree? It could be good news or bad news depending on the person and not their interest in tech…

If it is indeed correct, indeed. Hopefully we all get equality in paradise in the end.

Im not a historian, nor revolutionist, and i have the benefit of just shitting on your assertions. But i am your target audience. And i still dont know how you are going to convince me to read a stack of history books or pick up an AK.

My self interest will probably just make me want to fight for the system as long as i can instead of enduring hardship. Anyways nice talking to you.

I just want to say your effort is appreciated and fair points regarding what i dont know about marxism.

1. I think my conjecture that the power structures wont be destroyed is justification enough to not seek to destroy them. My “seems like” is alternative to working with the power structure, but i understand i dont have data to substaniate my belief that individuals wont overcome centralized supercomputer data analytics commanding autonomous enforcement.

2. I didnt say capitalism would be preserved, but that the current power structures would. I dont think there will be a compelling motivation for an impervious power structure to maintain the illusion of freedom. Profit falling off doesnt dissolve societal hierarchy if the power structure still enforces it by identity rather than wealth.

3. Our discomfort doesnt have much time to motivate us before we willingly accept the power structure (due to no alternative).

That said, im not convinced an omnipresent evil is guaranteed to arise from capitalism, just a self-interested entity.

Im feeling a little ignored with that answer when im saying the power structures can be largely automated, and used by individuals, which certainly must be outside the comprehension of marxist teachings.

Additionally, while capitalism might end, we have no guarantee about its replacement. If any time in history could yield a unique power structure it would be now.

Seems more relevant to try to influence the power structure than to destroy it. I say that not because it currently cant be destroyed, but that it wont, and this only becomes more true as time goes on as capability of automated power structures increases. Our comfort is ample to keep the system safe.