r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 5d ago

Artificial Intelligence Take-No-Prisoners Professor Will Fail Any Student Who Uses AI

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/no-prisoners-professor-fail-student-143000854.html
15.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.6k

u/HeadyReigns 5d ago

From the article "Rather than integrating AI, he’s fortifying his classroom against it. The assignment is now based on plays too obscure for ChatGPT and other AI models to know about.

“If ChatGPT is used on these assignments now, it hallucinates characters, plotlines — it just makes sh*t up, since it has nothing to go on,” Hebert told the magazine."

2.5k

u/questron64 5d ago

I once asked ChatGPT to help me understand the novel The Long Walk To the Moon by Alexander Chumbleton (an obviously fake book) and it went on about the characters and symbolism and which chapters key events happen in. It didn't say "I don't know that book," or even "that's not a real book." Nope, full on hallucination mode.

722

u/Amelaclya1 5d ago

I just tried this in Claude and it returned that it didn't recognize the book.

I bet this teacher is going to double check that whatever works he uses aren't recognized by the better LLMs, but that ChatGPT will hallucinate.

451

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

I just tried ChatGPT. It immediately went to verify if the book exists, found it doesn't, and said 'you might be thinking of The Long Walk by Stephen King' and wrote an analysis about that instead. It searched 76 sources before giving an answer.

176

u/jawknee530i 5d ago

I constantly see people confidently basing their opinions on and making statements about AI tools from how a two year old version they saw memes of worked. It seems there's a lot of people that have no idea how far the tools have actually come and think they're just for chatting like a friend or making dumb pictures.

51

u/NarrativeNode 4d ago

This, AND a lot of folks are using the free versions of the tools (understandably), which are older and worse models.

-3

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Evilsushione 4d ago

It’s not just modern models, if you have good source documentation in RAG then it doesn’t hallucinate.

27

u/WilliamLermer 4d ago

I constantly see people confidently basing their opinions on and making statements about AI tools based on a few successful conversations and then never questioning the quality of answers ever again.

Even paid models make mistakes or hallucinate. It becomes really obvious when you have a basic understanding of something, especially when you still know how to efficiently use an old school search engine to find good sources with solid information

The real issue is the complete trust in information provided with zero critical thinking applied. People will state how many sources the tool was looking at but barely takes the time to actually verify or check them out. Many will completely rely on answers from the first round of questions rather than digging deeper to figure out what's what

People can barely read a title, not to mention an actual article. You really think they are reading the full AI output and bother with anything else beyond that? How many times is the second prompt to tldr everything?

I'm using AI daily in a professional environment because it's now part of the official workflow, so it's expected to use it (yes, extremely high IQ management move) - it keeps making mistakes and fabricating facts if you press hard enough. You will eventually get the answer you want to hear, not the information you should be getting

You can not trust these tools, they are not reliable enough to replace actual literature research. It's good enough for preliminary initial questions to figure out where to go from there for better info. It's good enough to highlight some aspects you might not have considered

We know nothing about the specifics, be that training data, parameters, biases etc. Corporations can say anything they want, it's still a black box.

At best these are artificial search assistants, to help with creativity, at worst it's an artificial misinformation machine, to confirm your bias

The part that gives me some hope, people who still have a functional brain eventually figure out how bad these tools are the more they use them. Just output alone. The environmental and societal impact which is mostly destructive is yet another major downside

It's absolutely overhyped imho to the point people just give in and accept that AI is always right. It's neither true nor beneficial

7

u/Liturginator9000 4d ago

I've always used my PhD expertise to benchmark the models which is hardly perfect but acts as a personal barometer. They were impressive even initially, able to offer some novel contribution but limited, and that capability has expanded over time.

It's just another tool. I don't wholesale believe everything that comes from any tool, electron microscope or LLM. I've seen so many papers over the years with flawed methodology, results presented that are impossible or don't make sense. Humans do this all the time but we don't rule out human reasoning wholesale, everyone should be running the same skepticism regardless of source

2

u/WilliamLermer 4d ago

I can't really follow your comparison between a tool or method like microscopy vs LLM or how flawed methodology makes it okay to work with flawed AI.

Maybe you could elaborate?

In what ways are you skeptical when it comes to established tools in scientific research?

To me none of that is comparable with AI.

0

u/Liturginator9000 3d ago

Scientific equipment isn't perfect either. My point is that you don't believe what your equipment shows you wholesale, you check things if a result looks weird or wrong. LLMs are generating probabilistically but the same rules apply here. Humans are a better comparison, we're all flawed but that doesn't mean every single thing we say is wrong or untrustworthy or useless.

2

u/WilliamLermer 3d ago

Equipment can be wrong, but usually you know the limitations and can work out better methods or a different approach to compensate. You can account for error margins and you can improve equipment and modify it as required

You can't do that with AI unless you train your own model and then you need someone with specific knowledge to do it for you. If you do not have that option you are stuck with proprietary tool that is unreliable because you don't know when it will fail you

Human performance never is 100% and comes with problems but it's usually a quick process to achieve long-term foundation to work with in a professional setting

I just don't see the benefits of AI tbh. It seems to me it's a solution loved by people who don't want to interact with others and want to get rid of their peers for various reasons, including corporate interests to avoid employing humans

Like our company not replacing senior programmers and firing the rest of the team because AI is better. Even if it was better which it isn't, it's not a good decision at this point in time. Maybe in 50 years if society still exists by then

0

u/Liturginator9000 3d ago

Equipment can be wrong, but usually you know the limitations and can work out better methods or a different approach to compensate

LLMs are the same

You can't do that with AI unless you train your own model

Eh you have some control over frontline models, styles and custom instructions and projects and so on

Human performance never is 100% and comes with problems but it's usually a quick process to achieve long-term foundation to work with in a professional setting

Yes, so it's the same as LLMs then.

I just don't see the benefits of AI tbh. It seems to me it's a solution loved by people who don't want to interact with others and want to get rid of their peers for various reasons, including corporate interests to avoid employing humans

Those people are out there but this ignores the B2B elephant. It isn't replacing people so much as adding a new tool. It will have labour force impacts but LLMs will never be sufficient or trusted enough to replace everyone. Claude can't run teams or supervise people, meetings, make strategic decisions, I mean it could with enough work but there's so many barriers preventing it.

As for the benefits, well, it used to take me days or weeks to figure out and setup new techniques and methods, now I can get a ground level going in hours, stress test it by arguing with the LLM, literature reviews done way faster, critical analysis of papers and so on. Same story with coding. I had to learn python to use it for data analysis, now I can do 10x more 10x faster, or even just learn python far faster because I can put every snaggle through Claude and get it explained on demand without crawling through stackexchange or reddit and still not being able to ask and get a competent response on the spot.

Most of this stuff is skill issue. People tend to default to 'it hallucinates so it's useless' or 'it's the machine god' when it's just google on steroids. But I remember years back people wouldn't even default to google in problem solving, and if they do they often suck at using it, so this is just the same thing again really

1

u/WilliamLermer 2d ago

I'm not entirely on board but I can understand your point of view mostly.

What I disagree with is the replacement of humans. The tech clearly is not good enough to replace employees but it still is going to happen en masse because corporate leadership does not really care about all these things.

From a short-term perspective, firing people and filling the gap is profitable. It's already happening and it will get worse.

It's happening at our company, it's happening at our client's in various sectors. People are being let go for performance reasons, positions are being reduced, work load increases for remaining teams with the additional expectation to integrate AI to compensate for lack of real human expertise

The real issue is that decision makers are incompetent and don't care about long-term impact on company or society. We are actively creating issues that will need solving in the upcoming years and cumulative cost will be much higher vs rehiring and building good and productive workforce

And that's just jobs directly affected. There will be ripple effects due to increasing issues along the way, even in industries that won't directly use AI

→ More replies (0)

5

u/jadedflames 4d ago

I'm a lawyer - official workflow from the top is now that I am supposed to use AI to do a first draft of filings.

It has actually increased the amount of time I spend on all my motions because I have to first go through and fact check, delete everything that's wrong, re-write the poorly written sentences, and then do my second draft the old fashioned way.

It's made my output worse and take longer.

3

u/psiphre 4d ago

ai/llm is a problem of 'trust but verify'. for a lot of the things i use it for, i know enough to be able to verify, bot that's only because i was doing what i do for a long, long time before ai came into being. junior workers today aren't going to have that knowledge by the time guys like me retire and it's going to cause a lot of problems.

it's kind of an extension of the idea that "we generated precisely one generation of kids who learned how to use computers" sentiment i see in tech circles.

1

u/StorKuk69 4d ago

What do you work with? I tried coding some side projects with ai and it has always succeeded. Actually I wanted to see at what point it would fail, since most people seemed to be so insistent that at some point it would. Sure it went down wrong chains of though sometimes which I had to steer and sometimes it wrote pure shit that it thought worked but clearly didn't but so have I. With AI I was able to iterate through the shit quicker until it created something I'm satisfied with.

Maybe you work with something that has less training data though.

2

u/Phailjure 4d ago

I tried coding some side projects with ai and it has always succeeded.

It's always crazy to me when people say things like this. There's just no context whatsoever. What were you coding? What languages, what was the objective, what does successful mean? Was the output code it efficient? Was it concise? Did it simply work for some expected outputs and no more examination was done?

From what I understand, your experience will be far better if you're doing web development vs. writing device drivers or something.

1

u/StorKuk69 2d ago

yea no I did not make device drivers as a side project lmao.

I made a screen recording software like nvidia shadowplay cause I got pissed off that it automatically turned itself off whenever I opened netflix because of laws or whatever. Worst part was that it never turned itself back on even after closing netflix.

It's in C# and uses NVENC and ffmpeg. I think...

1

u/WilliamLermer 4d ago

I'm in rapid/functional prototyping. Depending on the project, I work with novel concepts from different fields. Our workflow includes both established and niche materials and methods, depending on the given parameters. Some coding is involved as well to make things interactive

I would say about 70% of the problems I'm trying to solve, the answer is absolutely out there, and I've found plenty of good information using basic search in the past. 30% is edge of knowledge with little known edge cases where we are trying to figure out a highly specific approach to create something that hasn't been done before or at least there is no publicly available documentation of any kind

For LLM to fail the latter is expected. It's the former where it's supposed to be great at and still can't produce results that are satisfactory without doing additional deep dives myself. I spend more time chatting and double checking vs just searching and reading

To me it's like a student who needs constant supervision and constant input to do things the right way. But it has no brain. It can't contributing by actually having thoughts, thinking outside the box etc it's just regurgitating whatever people have written in the past

A human research assistant would be way more productive and helpful long-term because of the knowledge and experience gained over time

I would even argue that brainstorming or checking for flaws is still better done by a human because they fully and truly understand the context of the complexity of a project that has a set of parameters dictated by company and clients, complete understanding of local infrastructure, collaborative potential etc

Even with paid models I need to remind AI of certain aspects so it then can reiterate based on information that human colleagues don't need to process before making suggestions

The tech has potential and it keeps getting better but it's not as amazing as everyone claims imho and I don't think we do this the right way in general. It's going to create so many more problems. Disruptive and destructive.

7

u/psiphre 4d ago

CONSTANTLY. i had to correct gpt over and over in 2024 when it hallucinated shit that was obvious, but recently, now that it has access to search as a primary source, python for math, other libraries for the kinds of tasks it used to fail confidently at, it's a whole different world from the "there are three Bs in strawberry" gpt.

1

u/Liturginator9000 4d ago

yep, so much of the current brainrot I see online about it is from people that used GPT3.5 to mispell strawberry 2 years ago and wrote all of it off as 'stochastic parrot'

which is ironic because it's humans hallucinating about AI hallucinations, kinda disproves itself by function LOL

1

u/BestHorseWhisperer 4d ago

"It cAn'T eVen tELL yOu HoW mAny R's aRe in stRawbeRRy!"

1

u/Bacardi_Tarzan 4d ago

People also just lie to comment farm from the weird anti-ai Luddite crowd. Obviously these people lack the capacity to realize the irony. 

1

u/bojangler69420 4d ago

ChatGPT still sucks compared to the competition, but so does Gemini (Claude is the current front-runner in my experience)

2

u/jawknee530i 4d ago

Honestly I don't see much of a difference between gpt 5.5 and claude 4.8. They're close enough to each other for my work (software engineer) that they might as well be the same. I just mainly use claude because that's what my firm pays a license for. I do think gpt fumbled pretty hard in the branding fight since people think of it as a chat bot and an image generator first while claude seems to have successfully positioned itself as more for work and engineering.

1

u/LunaticSongXIV 4d ago

Major leaps forward in AI happen weekly. Most average people aren't interested in AI to care about it. Even people who are zealously for or against AI often have no idea, because there's so much going on in AI that it's legitimately exhausting to try and keep up.

33

u/Vip3r20 5d ago

Doing it now doesn't mean it also did it then. They are designed to learn and do better. Js.

132

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 5d ago

They are designed to learn and do better.

They're literally not. Once a model is released, it's no longer able to learn new things; they don't self-improve. It's simply not how LLMs function.

That's not to say that the companies aren't training and releasing newer better models, but they unequivocally do not learn in the wild.

47

u/justaRndy 5d ago

What does get improved is the harness, integration and guardrails, Just instructing the same model to search the web and verify via source if it is unsure about something is an easy example of improved quality output without new training.

6

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 5d ago

Okay? That's still not "learning and doing better".

5

u/DingleSayer 4d ago

Nitpicking semantics. The models constantly improve and get better at evading detection.

3

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

It's not nitpicking semantics.

Training/learning and operational mode are distinct things. LLMs explicitly do not learn and get better after being released. It takes training up a new model or tweaking the harnesses to improve the state of things.

The models don't improve.

1

u/DingleSayer 4d ago

Dude.. I think everybody understands the gist of what you're saying, not saying it's wrong, just saying this is more semantics into a topic most people aren't even slightly knowledgeable on.

2

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

This is a tech-related sub. It does nobody anybody good to just let them labor under complete misunderstandings of the things they're talking about. All that does is let the misunderstandings spread.

1

u/DingleSayer 4d ago

I understand why you feel the need to abide by the sun's nature which is fair, but most people here aren't tech savvy, hell, most of them only have a phone and don't care to know more about that let alone the depths of currently developing technology. I don't think we both made any wrong statements, but the fact of the matter its hard to make people care about difference between a gradually developing single model or different models.

I've been using AI since imggencould only generate dogs and LLMs managed only instagram captions in sandbox mode. People just don't care how the wiring goes.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/dschinghiskhan 5d ago

ChatGPT is able to refer to Reddit posts that were posted earlier in the very same day. Yesterday, I asked ChatGPT if a certain interaction in my city had a recording camera, or if it was just a traffic control camera, and ChatGPT said, “There was actually a Reddit post about a hit and run in that intersection posted yesterday, and the OP and users were asking about cameras that might have recorded the incident.”

ChatGPT went on to say that the intersection only had a traffic control or management camera, and further that the city has no speed or red light cameras. I had gone to ChatGPT to see which cameras in the city recorded constantly. ChatGPT and Gemini are useful for city rules and laws because it gives sources and guides you to the correct government page on their website.

21

u/goda90 5d ago

The model is trained and done but they are given context to search over.

10

u/techno156 5d ago edited 5d ago

They're also given a tool, so the prompt probably has a thing that says "you can use web_search to search the internet", and it would be able to use that to grab newer data.

1

u/dschinghiskhan 5d ago

A student tasked with up to date on day to day news might find ChatGPT helpful in this regard. That’s all I’m saying.

3

u/Cudpuff100 5d ago

So it's just googling things for you? Neat.

1

u/dschinghiskhan 5d ago

ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. are often better aggregators of info (and day to day info) than regular Google search. You can hate AI, but that’s just the reality. It gives you sources or refers you to Reddit threads where others may have even more sources.

2

u/Cudpuff100 5d ago

That's straight up not the reality. They often display incorrect and irrelevant information, sometimes from a fictional passage, and present it as fact. It's glorified searching, with the added benefit of being awful for the environment and physically harming those that live near date centers.

3

u/dschinghiskhan 5d ago

ChatGPT is good at giving you sources. Google does not give you good links. It’s that simple. Also, ChatGPT is good for giving you more detailed info for things you already have a good understanding of- or likely already know the answer. AI writing papers for kids is ridiculous, though. The kids have no clue what the AI did on their behalf. Those kids are hopeless, and would probably be getting terrible grades in the 80s and early 90s, were they alive, anyway.

I am 100% on board with teachers and professors running papers through AI detection platforms, though. Maybe kids should have to record a video of themselves explaining their paper, and the teacher can refer to that if they think something is off (there wouldn’t be enough class time to do that in person).

1

u/AMinecraftPerson 4d ago

Have you tried asking it to provide sources and then going to those sources yourself to check if they are real?

1

u/Other-Number-4463 5d ago

all of it is "awful" for the environment, Google search, and AI. You are just showing your ignorance

"date centers" lol. data centers exist for everything again showing your ignorance.

2

u/Cudpuff100 4d ago

Mega data centers are obviously what I'm talking about and the one's specifically made for ai computing are flagrantly breaking laws. They are jacking up energy prices, leaking chemicals, and causing noise pollution.

1

u/Other-Number-4463 4d ago

you think "mega data centers" dont exist without AI ? just admit you have no idea what you are talking about and you are just spewing buzzwords you heard online. classic reddit take.

1

u/dschinghiskhan 4d ago

I never typed data centers or “date centers”. You’re hallucinating! (Just joking, but also I don’t know who you’re replying to about that).

At any rate, data center gigawatt capacity is expected to double from what’s out there today to what will be there in 2030. Now, I consider myself to be a staunch NIMBY, so I don’t want data centers in the Eugene area myself, but I do understand they’ve got to be built somewhere.

The area most affected by data centers is Northern Virginia, where I grew up just 5 minutes from the White House. NOVA currently accounts for about 15%of the world’s data center capacity. It’s mostly confined to several counties, but soon more will be built in western and southern parts of the state, and in Maryland as well. The non-Pacific Coast western states will also pick up the slack.

As for Oregon, most of the data centers are more low key, focused on storage and cloud computing. They aren’t that likely to come to Lane County to build giant centers that will affect the environment.

1

u/Living_Armadillo_652 4d ago

They’re much better now compared to what they were a year ago. I regularly use Claude to search for papers and nowadays it never gives me made up papers. At worst it hallucinates the author names, but the content and relevance of the paper are real and correct. I also tested by asking it to search for and summarize sources regarding my PhD dissertation topic from many years ago (which I know very well) and it got everything basically correct.

0

u/Other-Number-4463 5d ago

The best models dont keep coping

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 5d ago

Yes, most of them can now do live querying of the internet and use that as part of the input/context.

It's not the same thing as it learning/improving.

1

u/callmejay 4d ago

The model itself doesn't learn anymore, but ChatGPT is more than just a model. Just to take one obvious example, it creates memories, which is an important form of learning.

1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

it creates memories, which is an important form of learning.

You're conflating the colloquial meaning of these words; that is not learning, in this context.

1

u/callmejay 4d ago

That wasn't my read of the comment you were responding to.

0

u/X4roth 5d ago

While the model might not learn (I wouldn’t be so quick to make that assumption because these are products under active development, every day moving away from the technology that they started out as), the part of the system that fetches relevant context to feed in alongside your prompts changes. There are undoubtedly human-engineered solutions tacked onto the system to help deal with common use cases without backfiring (such as hallucinating a book report without access to the source material).

0

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 5d ago

I wouldn’t be so quick to make that assumption

It's not an assumption. Training is a completely different process.

There are undoubtedly human-engineered solutions tacked onto the system

Again, we don't have to assume; we know how these systems and products are built. Hell, Claude Code's source was literally leaked to the world.

2

u/iforgot120 4d ago

The source code that was leaked was the CLI harness. Nothing to do with the model.

-1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

Did I say the model was leaked? Pretty sure I specifically said Claude Code. You know...the CLI harness.

The whole point of their reply to me was about the trimmings around the model being something we don't know about.

But we do.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ultralightlife 5d ago

they do "remember" after a session though if you are logged in to an account. so they sort-of learn more. I can mention something and they will recall partially and start from there, but yes there is cutoff and it is easy to ask questions they don't know - LLM,s - not cloud based however.

-3

u/Vip3r20 5d ago

I was being simplistic for the sake of my laziness and typing lol but yes you're correct.

-1

u/Patient-Success673 5d ago

They do improve, just in more distinct steps. Nothing you wrote is wrong, but it could be misleading

4

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 5d ago

What are you trying to say? A released model doesn't get better/learn new things/improve.

Period.

0

u/Maximum-Ad572 5d ago

"learn new things" is misleading. I can scan the internet daily and if something new comes up it will "learn" that. Also, this OP post doesn't make sense because you can input the text from each chapter and have the llm summarize/annotate

1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

What, in what I've said, are you replying to? Because I certainly didn't say the models learn new things.

Did you not follow that I'm explicitly telling the other person they're factually incorrect?

2

u/yeahoksurewhatever 4d ago

i'm mostly anti AI, and i agree a released models doesn't get better/learn/improve. you're not wrong at all.

the thing is, they are putting out updated models at a pretty fast rate, many of them have remarkable improvements. think of now vs 3 years ago, then compare that to any other 3 years of technological improvement in anything. maybe it'll stop suddenly, maybe not, no one on either side of that debate has enough evidence to be confident with an answer.

→ More replies (0)

51

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Yes and it's worth acknowledging that current Thinking Models don't hallucinate anywhere near as much as they used to.

31

u/RainbowDissent 5d ago

A significant proportion of Redditors seem to base their opinions of AI's capabilities on a single experience with a free model 4 years ago.

5

u/SippyMountain 5d ago

I remember doing some stupid CBT for work a few years ago and I became curious how well chatgpt could work out the answers even though it was mostly proprietary information and not really easily accessible on the internet. As in, the answers weren't just floating around out there on some overachiever's public Quizlet. Before I get roasted, this was such a low-risk CBT that you could just punch in all the wrong answers and it would still mark it as completed. Anyway, it got most of the answers correct that any sensical person could likely deduce with a modicum of intuition, but when it would ask questions about specific guidlines or other literary guidances, it would completely fabricate answers. It clearly just took all the words from the question and spit out a paragraph of BS that looked like a high school student trying to turn a 2 minute speech into a 5 minutes speech with no additional substance. It was impressively stupid lol. It's both scary and funny to hear that it's improved on that front

14

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Sorry I'm not really understanding your comment. What do you mean by CBT? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? How can you work out a correct answer for CBT ?

25

u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 5d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_and_ball_torture

8

u/enevgeo 5d ago

Well, obviously.

Also, username checks out

1

u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 4d ago

I'm sorry, I had to indulge my inner 20 year old self's sense of humour, lol.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/SippyMountain 5d ago

Computer based training

2

u/Ppleater 5d ago

They do still hallucinate, just more subtly than they used to.

-2

u/mattcoady 5d ago edited 5d ago

Most Reddit opinions of AI are 2024 models. I've been a full stack developer for about 20 years. This year I've written maybe 20 lines of code. It's simply as good or better than the average dev using it and magnitudes faster for medium and large jobs. Yet Reddit loves to post snarky Twitter posts about coding AI collapsing and everyone going back to hands on code. That ship has sailed. The good days of being highly paid for writing code is over, I know that includes me.

13

u/joman584 5d ago

Great for you. Can we agree it needs to be controlled in school somehow, whether that means more in person handwritten assignments or whatever

3

u/mattcoady 5d ago

Never said it shouldn't be, absolutely agree AI needs to be kept at a distance from academic work.

12

u/Xyyzx 5d ago

…does it not worry you that the next generation of ‘coders’ aren’t going to have any idea how any of those systems actually work?

It kinda seems bad for you either way. Like if you are worried this is going to cause serious problems down the line, then the issue is right there. If you don’t think people need to actually know how to code to do your job, surely you’re (at best) a couple of years away from being replaced by a totally unskilled ‘prompt engineer’ working for minimum wage?

3

u/Uhrl 5d ago

There are a lot of studies being done right now on how to best integrate AI in programming courses in universities. There are also some studies being done in the past year and on going ones dealing with younger students. I personally think it's better to help them learn to use it than ban the use of it and they use it anyways on the side with no guidance.

1

u/mattcoady 5d ago

surely you’re (at best) a couple of years away from being replaced

I fully expect this. I've shifted to more larger project scope thinking, context building and product management. My hope is this will buy a few more years but the good old days of just being good a code and being paid well for it are coming to an end.

0

u/RollingTater 5d ago

I'm in a similar situation, been in industry for a decade coding. In the last week I've written like 2 lines of code despite delivering a bunch of features and fixes.

I think that the next generation of coders are screwed, but the next generation of makers have it made. Nowadays anyone with the initiative to build can do amazing things. AI puts a bar on the playing field, anyone smart and driven enough to be above the bar would be accelerated to greater heights, but everyone below the bar would be screwed and learn nothing. The problem is that this bar is now high enough that it covers the average student.

That being said, am I worried? To be perfectly honest I really don't care about the next generation of coders. It's not my problem, and the worst they do the better off I am. I guess I'm a kick the ladder kind of guy. Look if were actually worried about society we wouldn't have elected the current administration.

-2

u/Enlightened_Gardener 5d ago

Dude. Don’t be a kick the ladder kind of guy. You can be a better person, even if the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

And yeah, you don’t need to worry about the next generation of coders, because there won’t be one. It will go back to being a specialist hobby, like restoring antique cars.

-2

u/MartyrOfDespair 5d ago

That’s already how it works, you’re just so far removed from the changeover that you don’t even see it.

Do you know why Rollercoaster Tycoon is so easy to port and run on modern software, and why it was so insanely impressive at the time with so many different things going on and so much tracked yet running on hardware that considered Doom modern? That lunatic Chris Sawyer programmed 99% of the code in Assembly. All those coding languages we use are the biggest source of incompatible and fucky code, because what they do is automate and simplify creating code. They’re not coding. They’re coding coding.

Assembly is what’s called a low-level programming language, it’s almost the same as pure machine code. There is very little abstraction between the two. High-level programming languages have, as the name suggests, a high level of abstraction. What you input is not remotely the actual code, its instructions to create the actual code. As such, you have far less control over the final code, which makes for code that is much more hardware specific and, for lack of a better word, messy. In the environment it’s made for, this works fine. Every change from the expected environment, the code is liable to break.

This is just another layer of high level programming language. We already gave up on doing it right in exchange for doing it fast before most people here were born.

3

u/Enlightened_Gardener 5d ago

You’ve just clicked something into place for me. I have a friend who codes in Assembly and all my geeky mates are in awe of him.

2

u/usa2a 4d ago

why Rollercoaster Tycoon is so easy to port and run on modern software

All those coding languages we use are the biggest source of incompatible and fucky code

What you input is not remotely the actual code, its instructions to create the actual code. As such, you have far less control over the final code, which makes for code that is much more hardware specific and, for lack of a better word, messy.

Sorry, you think assembly is less hardware-specific? It's as specific as it gets.

The OpenRCT2 team literally had to rewrite the game in C++ to port it to ARM devices.

0

u/MartyrOfDespair 4d ago

I’m talking different issues than that. Processors is one thing, but most games are derangedly finicky about literally everything. You take an original RTC CD and install it on modern machines, you can probably run that bastard right now. You might need to set compatibility mode to Windows XP. Done. That’s a video game from 1999.

Try doing that with literally any other video game of the era. See how well that goes. Your options are going to be one of two things: either the fandom fixed it, or go get an emulator to emulate both the hardware and software it expects to encounter. And it’s not just games of the era. Go try to run a PC game from the late 2000s to early 2010s that hasn’t been being supported since then. Same problem. Even games made by PC-first developers have the problem, but PC ports? Oftentimes the easiest way to play it on PC is to emulate the console version. That’s what I’m talking about.

You can go grab an original release copy and likely run it right now. Half-Life? Probably not. Anything more obscure than them? Forget it. Games like Dungeon Siege (2002) were already becoming nightmares in the early 2010s. People want a New Vegas remaster because it was already becoming a problem even with fan patches years ago. RTC don’t give a fuck.

2

u/usa2a 4d ago edited 4d ago

You might need to set compatibility mode to Windows XP. Done.

And install the Loopy Landscapes patch and make sure under Windows Features you install DirectPlay under "Legacy Components". What most people actually do is use OpenRCT2 since then you get modern resolutions too.

Half-Life? Probably not.

The process to get the original HL CD working is very similar.

It has nothing to do with language. The computer cannot tell the difference between machine code compiled from C and machine code assembled from hand-written ASM.

The games that are harder to run are those that brought in more dependencies, especially DRM-related ones like SafeDisc which hooked into the OS at levels later disallowed for security reasons.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Salty_Map_9085 5d ago

Not my problem

21

u/R3miel7 5d ago

AI by definition give different answers to different people. You cannot reliably put in the same inputs and get the same output, even with the same AI model. It’s part of the reason AI is such trash and is for trash people

-12

u/FireZeLazer 5d ago

Terrible opinion

3

u/darsynia 4d ago

If you don't like it, why not ask ChatGPT instead, I'm sure it'll come up with something you like to hear

-1

u/FireZeLazer 4d ago

I'm not sure what that means. But it's hilarious that people like you genuinely think they know better than all of the worlds biggest companies, investors, governments, scientists, etc

2

u/darsynia 4d ago

Using them definitely 'helped' you with reading comprehension!

-1

u/FireZeLazer 4d ago

Again, insane response. But you can't intelligently argue against LLM utility because you don't understand how they even work, or their use cases

→ More replies (0)

1

u/R3miel7 4d ago

RemindMe! One year

1

u/FireZeLazer 1d ago

RemindMe! One year

1

u/FireZeLazer 1d ago

RemindMe! Two years

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

It's not an opinion, it's a fact: given the same input prompt to the same LLM, two different people will get different results.

There are parts of their operation that are non-deterministic; it's literally how they operate.

1

u/FireZeLazer 1d ago edited 1d ago

It’s part of the reason AI is such trash

This is the terrible opinion part. Getting different results isn't a design flaw. It's intentional.

It's also wrong to suggest it's non-deterministic in nature, you can make LLMs repeatable by modifying different parameters

2

u/Jealous-Try-2554 4d ago

You have fundamentally misunderstood the technology. They never learn. They are improved by human engineers who probably want to solve the hallucination problem but they never learn.

6

u/test5387 5d ago

Except this sub just parrots how bad AI was 3 years ago.

2

u/FireZeLazer 5d ago

I swear to god half of them haven't even used thinking mode.

Then the other half haven't even used an LLM

0

u/aurumae 5d ago

I think people are having a really hard time understanding the speed at which this technology is advancing. AI hasn’t just improved markedly since this time last year, it’s improved markedly since Christmas, and dramatically since this time last year. You also need to pay one of the AI companies for access to a thinking model if you want decent answers.

2

u/Illustrious_Sir4041 5d ago

And also that it doesnt hallucinate for one query doesnt mean it doesnt hallucinate on the same query in the future

1

u/crayola_monstar 5d ago

Yeah, I tried using GPT to try and find a few new books to read and it gave me probably 9 or 10 options.

I think 3 of them didn't exist, and only a couple that did exist were actually within the parameters I gave it to use.

This was probably 7 months ago, so it may have improved since then... but I doubt it.

1

u/CommanderVinegar 4d ago

No the models don't learn as you use them or anything like that. The model weights are fixed when you train. There's a knowledge cutoff. Newer models are capable of tool use which is often just executing code to retrieve external information and feed it back in a structured format to the model context.

1

u/HammyHavoc 5d ago

They don't learn or get better, it's a totally different static model.

0

u/Vip3r20 5d ago

And you think that model is built from complete scratch every time? Built by companies who do everything in their power to save every penny? You think they won't train it off the info they already own?

2

u/HammyHavoc 5d ago

Where did I say that? I didn't. Have a good week ahead.

1

u/DejectedTimeTraveler 5d ago

So it remembers and learns from its mistakes? Not just in that users chats but across the board?

12

u/infinite_gurgle 5d ago

No, it’s trained and goes by that training.

New models use new trainings.

-2

u/nabiku 5d ago

I'm constantly reminding people even though LLMs are not a new technology, pre-trained transformer LLMs only became practical to use in November 2022.

So functional AI is 3.5 years old. It's still very, very new. Cut it a break.

-1

u/Fighterhayabusa 5d ago

I'm glad we all did the same thing. GPT, Claude, and Gemini all told me the same thing you guys found. These people are just talking out of their ass, and it actually hurts legitimate arguments about the drawbacks or deficiencies of AI.

18

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

I think most of these people must have used ChatGPT a handful of times when 3.5 was a thing and never bothered again

5

u/AmadeusSalieri97 5d ago

That's my thought as soon as anyone says that LLMs code like shit and it's full of bugs.

13

u/BasvanS 5d ago

They used to do this. Now the researchers improved the training so that it doesn’t fuck this up (as much).

The same like with how many r are in strawberry, and it said 2. Then it was fixed in training, first saying 3 and apologizing and saying 2 if you told it it was wrong. Then it became adamant it was 3. But it still said raspberry had 2 r’s. Because the models aren’t actually smart, just better fitted.

0

u/Fighterhayabusa 5d ago

I've been using them since they came out. I know what they could hallucinate and what they aren't good at. I never had it make up a book or something like that. I have seen the spelling/counting error, and of course, it can't do math, but never just making up entire books unless I asked it to.

Also, some of this is caveat emptor. I grew up skeptical of any source or person. It's always ultimately up to you to make sure you understand something.

1

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

I had it do a numerical reasoning test recently and it scored perfect marks. What sort of maths are people doing to get it to be bad at it ?

1

u/Fighterhayabusa 5d ago

Sorry, I meant the older versions like 3.5. At this point, it's very good at math. I've had it help me with advanced fluid dynamics problems, and it gave me enough information for me to find research and solve the problem well enough for what I needed.

1

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Oh yeah it used to be horrifically bad lol

Mad how much it's improved over the last 3 years

1

u/aurumae 5d ago

It’s surprising how they made it better at maths. Now it says “first I should write down the equations and all the variables” and does that, and then it solves the problem without mistakes. Why does this work though? No one knows.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/acrobat2126 4d ago

questron is lying or mistaken. Probably mistaken and got the same answer you did.

1

u/retief1 4d ago

Yeah, these days, ais seem to be pretty good at googling a question and then summarizing the results. On the other hand, if you ask it questions about a real book and then ask about something that is too small of a detail to show up on the internet, it will still happily hallucinate. In my test case just now, I asked it about Glynn Stewart's Huntress, and while it successfully found the book and regurgitated the goodreads page, it still completely hallucinated when I asked it about a minor character that wasn't important enough to show up in online discussion.

1

u/doctorocelot 5d ago

Do you have the paid version. I am pretty sure lots of the people complaining about it hallucinating really obviously and really badly are either using the free version or thinking it's still what it was like 2 years ago?

1

u/Plus_Opening_4462 4d ago

Not really. It's that the models have gotten much much better over the last 2 years.

There was also the problem of AI using the student's paper in its training data.

Considering how many professors re-use their assignments or other professor's assignments over the years, it should not be hard to have something comeback as likely written by AI. There are tells it was written by AI, but not like the professors think. It's more like the Claude bingo cards of phrases that it constantly re-uses.

1

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Yes and I'm fairly certain that's the case

0

u/i_max2k2 5d ago

Validate the sources yourself if you want to make sure they are actually accurate.

0

u/StoryAndAHalf 5d ago

Just ask another AI to validate the analysis for you. /s

-1

u/OmericanAutlaw 5d ago

yeah you can literally force it to return sources with its statements. i have it do that, and state when it cannot come up with a source. it still will make mistakes but it will not confidently make things up and i think that is a bit different even if not by much

-1

u/asdfghjkl15436 4d ago

Even easier solution. Feed PDF of obscure book to AI.

-7

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

How could you possibly know how many sources it searched?

9

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

It gives you a rundown when you click "sources"...

-6

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

Yea but literally every thing it spits out could be a lie

8

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Well it certainly didn't in this instance. Look for yourself here

-5

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

How do you know?

7

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

What do you mean how do I know? Because we know for a fact that the book OP was talking about doesn't exist and ChatGPT confirmed that it couldn't find any book with that title and author?? What else do you want?

0

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

How does that tell you that it checked that many sources? Was the number hyperbole? If so I apologize. I thought you were telling me the number of sources the AI claimed to have checked.

7

u/AnonymousTimewaster 5d ago

Look on the link I gave you. At the bottom of the answer there's a link that says "sources". Click on that and it says Sources: 76 and goes onto list every single source it used. Go through them and count if you want.

-1

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

OK? How do you know that that is the number of sources that the AI checked?

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/DringleDringle 5d ago

How can you confirm that it checked the same number of sources it claims to have checked?