Post

to be clear refusal/resistance does not refer to teaching genai. ofc we need to teach it like any other subject. my op refers to institutional refusal/resistance to incorporate/use it in the teaching leaning process

That's not really refusal, that's reaction to alleged student use. More of a surrender than resistance, really. Resistance would be refusing to let this change the coursework.

0 reposts5 likes

I think you've got those the wrong way round - surrender would be keep setting the coursework, keep marking it, just let chatGPT screw the grading. Resistance is changing process to go around chatGPT so it can't help. but i'm not really here to argue, we can think different things that's ok.

But it's not a good thing if coursework essays aren't being set anymore. That's a bad thing for the students who want to honestly learn. Resistance is finding a way to maintain that in the face of the challenge posed by ChatGPT's existence.

It also, I think, concedes something that should absolutely not be conceded: it grants ChatGPT implicit equivalence to a mind, because it assumes that you could never set an assignment where you'd be able to tell its output apart from actual thinking.

I'm less ideological. It concedes that chatGPT can write a good essay in response to an essay-setting question. Which is true. Professors' job is to work out how to teach in world where that exists and 'no more writing essays at home' is, I think, a reasonable response. If you have better, share!

In fact, the way students would use it to cheat on an assignment that require references (agentic search) leaves loads of telltale markers, because an LLM has no world model, no conceptualisation, and is not actually cognitively processing inputs.