God this is so depressing. Remember when people were actually INTERESTED in things and learned because they were curious and stimulated. Fuck all of these little corporate know nothings and their cheat-machine. If I were teaching these classes, I'd be standing these kids up in front of the class and asking them probing questions about the essay topics they wrote about and grading them purely on demonstrated knowledge.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
313 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
69867 readers
3040 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How long before Respondus introduces an education equivalent of BattlEye or other kernel-level anticheats as a result of stuff like this?
And I don't mean the Lockdown browser, I mean something beyond that, so as to block local AI Implementations in addition to web-based ones.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's still plenty of fields that are more hands-on and either really hard or impossible to AI-cheat your way through. For example, if you're going for carpentry at the local vo-tech, good luck AI-cheating your way through that when that's a very hands-on subject by its nature.
Or, ya'know, they could just have students take tests on paper in a lecture hall.
That’s what we used to do, 15 years ago though
Doesn't even need to be paper. Have locked-down, internet-disconnected computers in the exam hall bas glorified typewriters.
Why not a middle ground? Have them only access a local network version of Wikipedia + a verified library to search
Back when I was in grade school in the mid 1990’s, we were one of the first families to have a computer. We weren’t allowed to ANY schoolwork on it. If you had to write a paper, it had to be written by hand. Which, as someone who could type much faster and used bigger words, was REALLY fucking annoying.
But yeah, I imagine we need to go back to dumb, disconnected computers in exam halls to keep things above board. It’s depressing to see how lazy this tech makes students.
Exactly, that's how it works in my country. I think the PCs are connected to a local server that then matches the results to your id and email.
Because nobody ever cheated on a paper exam before.
perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that
I would argue that in person exams with no resources to do research goes against how the world works for most white collar workers.
Few are unable to research on the internet to verify information, or at least look at say a man page for coding or look up past stuff on stackoverflow, if they are working through a problem.
Standardized testing is just not as useful as-is. I do great at it and can typically pass exams without really studying the material, but others are not so lucky.
I've met people who can flunk exams but talk about the problems, go into how they would fix it, and work through a problem to implementation and testing in the real world.
Oh, and LLMs are the new typewriter, for better or worse. It's unlikely we are going to have a future where they are not readily available. We already have models that run locally and do not transmit data anywhere, and AI customized to your own data that is not shared is already a service provided by Microsoft.
Education needs to evolve with technology. It's always been 5-10 years behind the curve.
Maybe we should be using LLMs to proctor tests and generate interactive testing. Grading can be verified by a professor reading a transcript to verify hallucinations didn't occur or influence the results. We can even have LLMs monitor the working process of people to help determine what are the most efficient ways to work custom tailored to individuals. This is just one idea of many potential options.
Those are all very nice ideas, and we'll see if they pan out in the future. But universities need ways to stop (or, fine, reduce) cheating that can be implemented right now. A class in English literature and composition should test how well you can read and interpret the source material to then express something about it in your own words in a coherent way. This is a useful life skill to have, and students should learn to do it without AI assistance. Giving them a pen and paper and a quiet room to work in has been a good enough method of assessment for at least the last 50 years which is reasonably cost effective.
Yes, there are problems with standardized testing. Yes, you can cheat on a paper test. But the way to improve the evaluation process is to first establish a stable baseline, and then try new things that might work better to see if they actually work better. Not to throw out everything we knew before and haphazardly try every random idea that pops into someone's head in a panic.
Or even actually show what they learned in a practical sense. In a vo-tech, for example, have the students fix up a car or get a small LAN set up, or even in the case of an art school, have the class do a mural or a sidewalk-scale mosaic outside as their end-of-instruction project (both of those sound like really fun end-of-instruction projects, btw), with admin approval, of course.
Academia isn’t really that practical
Vo-techs at least kinda have to be based on the types of things they tend to teach, you can't really teach things like masonry out of a book, for example, that's one subject where you actually need to go in and get your hands dirty as it were, and actually do the thing being taught, to learn it, or really anything else having to do with building a house.
I could very much argue that this also applies to art school as well, but there's also a lot of theory and history and such that very much needs a lot of reading to pick up, although things like color theory are best picked up by actually mixing different paint colors together, as well as the practical side of things in terms of actually doing a painting or drawing or sculpture or whatever.
You don’t really go to college for masonry though
Not in the traditional sense anyways.
I like this idea, but I also think that we should keep in mind that the time of university staff is expensive, and with the already outlandish cost of education we need to strike a balance
tools like that were going big in the pandemic for online exams. Basically rootkits that fully compromise your machine
When I look at the quality of prominent Americans who went to ivy league schools, I don't think cheating your way through college will make much difference.
Pete hegseth graduated from princeton without the use of AI and he is one dumb fucking cunt, for example
He used money instead, way better than AI.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It’s almost as if college isn’t about bettering yourself but paying a racket so you can check off a mandatory box on your resume for the pleasure of your corporate liege-lords…
Not to sound like a starry eyed idealist, but it’s both.
It sucks that it’s just a weird mandatory box, but if you don’t cheat your way through college you should better yourself in lots of ways. Learning how to independently organize tasks and time and research and challenging your preconceptions and struggling to really grasp complex ideas.
It should be all those things.
Correct.
It's also why everyone needs a linkedin and to wear a suit. We have an environment where you're not an attractive hire unless you can show you've 'paid into the system.'
It's fucked, and that's by design. We need to start respecting people who are fighting back instead of shaming them.
view more: next ›