Flip the classroom, make students learn the material on their own (Using AI or whatever resources they want to use) and then in-classroom time is divided on working on problems (without AI assistance which can be controlled in this environment) and quizzes/exams (again without AI). We don't need lectures anymore, they are an incredibly ineffective way to learn.
I had some "reverse classroom" classes back in college, and it was the best kind of class for me. Read the papers on your own time before class, and spend class discussing and in tests.
It did, however, absolutely require everyone to prepare for every class. Some people complained a lot about this, which might be why this was not as popular as more common lectures.
Yep. I've been using AI to teach myself system design and it's been a god send. Was struggling with other courses because I couldn't have it tailored to what I wanted.
I don’t believe that at all. Maybe it’s killed large lecture classrooms. There’s a lot of other ways to engage students and ensure they’re learning but it involves being more active and actually communicating with them instead of yapping lectures at them and making them write about it. I find most college classes that involved lectures to be a waste, why sit and listen to a teacher summarize a book for an hour? My best experiences were classes with active engagement and producing things in class or bringing them back to class to share discuss and learn.
I'm not as pessimistic about its impact on scientific publishing. Yes, you can churn articles faster, but if people catch you gaming this system to extreme lengths your reputation will take a huge hit. And the system is very transparent and visible, so it'll follow you forever.
Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.
We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
With the volume of outputs in today's academia, this is simply not possible. There are conferences with tens of thousands of submitted papers, grants have hundreds of pages, etc.
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
What superhuman? This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy based on its current prediction models and data input, neither is it a targeted to make us superhumans in the first place.
It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.
Flip the classroom, make students learn the material on their own (Using AI or whatever resources they want to use) and then in-classroom time is divided on working on problems (without AI assistance which can be controlled in this environment) and quizzes/exams (again without AI). We don't need lectures anymore, they are an incredibly ineffective way to learn.
I had some "reverse classroom" classes back in college, and it was the best kind of class for me. Read the papers on your own time before class, and spend class discussing and in tests.
It did, however, absolutely require everyone to prepare for every class. Some people complained a lot about this, which might be why this was not as popular as more common lectures.
Yep. I've been using AI to teach myself system design and it's been a god send. Was struggling with other courses because I couldn't have it tailored to what I wanted.
I had a chat with my state legislators to streamline education; shift all public school and university funding to libraries staffed by SMEs
Mandate N hours year of and guided group work for under 18s
Mandate N hours for becoming an SME for roles that require such
Break the pipeline from the factory era of linearly pumping out kids who are just smart enough to run the machines
I don’t believe that at all. Maybe it’s killed large lecture classrooms. There’s a lot of other ways to engage students and ensure they’re learning but it involves being more active and actually communicating with them instead of yapping lectures at them and making them write about it. I find most college classes that involved lectures to be a waste, why sit and listen to a teacher summarize a book for an hour? My best experiences were classes with active engagement and producing things in class or bringing them back to class to share discuss and learn.
I'm not as pessimistic about its impact on scientific publishing. Yes, you can churn articles faster, but if people catch you gaming this system to extreme lengths your reputation will take a huge hit. And the system is very transparent and visible, so it'll follow you forever.
> And the system is very transparent and visible
Is that really the case though? It seems like quite a lot of cases get hushed up and swept under the rug.
Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.
We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.
With the volume of outputs in today's academia, this is simply not possible. There are conferences with tens of thousands of submitted papers, grants have hundreds of pages, etc.
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
Big part of the annoyance is that journals demand basically free labor - while costing massive amount of money if you want to read them.
A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.
How about we embrace the era of the superhuman?
It's not the era of the superman coming. It's the era of the sewers man.
What superhuman? This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy based on its current prediction models and data input, neither is it a targeted to make us superhumans in the first place.
It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.
> This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy
Do humans?
Superman is here. Just missing physical form. That’s coming. 2028.
year of the Linux desktop?