How I changed teaching after AI managed to do all my homework assignments
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
How I changed teaching after AI managed to do all my homework assignments
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
a57721 · · focus · HN ↗
I rely on written exams that are open book, but forbid any use of computers and smartphones in class.
The university insists that homework can't be optional, but it lost its meaning. I've tried to explain to my students that it's in their interest to think about home assignments on their own, but the majority will obviously use gen AI, and it's such a waste of time to check and grade LLM output.
I just had an experience where all students were given "sample problems" to try at home and prepare for the written test. Many of them just dumped the document into an LLM, asked it to produce some "exam guide", and showed up with that thing printed out, asking me during the test to explain what LLM output meant.
It seems like the university also has many people pushing for AI use for everything, but I teach basic stuff where the goal is to make students think on their own and digest some fundamental ideas, LLMs can produce perfect solutions, but relying on them is pointless.
fartfeatures · · focus · HN ↗
If I knew most of my students were using LLMs I would encourage the rest of them to use them too. I would then change the marking criteria such that if they get a single point wrong that's 20% off the entire grade. 5 mistakes gets you a big fat zero.
LLMs are great but they make mistakes. At this point your students would have had to spend so long checking, re-checking and triple checking the LLM's output that they will have accidentally learn what they need to. They will likely need to cross-reference multiple LLMs and at least have read their output which is likely an upgrade on today.
Or some variation of the above, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
foresterre · · focus · HN ↗
Reviewing is just not the same as working through a problem yourself. You often can take shortcuts when checking answers for correctness, which generation (with mind or LLM) of the solution can't take. This isn't limited to Math but equally true for programming and many other skills.
fartfeatures · · focus · HN ↗
The people that do their own work would be at a huge advantage as the LLM(s) can work as reviewers instead of doing the work so there is more chance of catching a mistake before you lose 20%.
On top of that there will be some issues where the LLM is just plain wrong. Being able to work out when that is the case is a hugely useful skill in 2026. It is also something the people who blindly feed their work into an LLM and print its answer without reading it will be unable to discover. Much to their own detriment.
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
That's because we write much smaller quantities of code than we read. Not that LoC is a useful metric, but I'd be surprised if I write more than a few hundred lines a code a day in a legacy codebase. Most of the time is spent planning and deliberating over what to write, and perhaps revising code a few times. Meanwhile, understanding what a snippet of code does can easily spiral into having you read thousands of lines of code across several modules.
But that's for work. writing is a stronger learning tool than reading, and we needed to write tens of thousands of lines of code before we got into the door and started reading more than we wrote. It's still preferable for students to do the same and write as much for their homework as possible.
Explaining that paradigm shift from learning to working isn't trivial, and is often poorly done. But it's needed if we ever want people to frame these tools as productivity boosters, and not shortcuts through tedium. Learning by its nature involves some tedium.