I have experience with highschool students and I'd like to add one thing. There is a clear anti-AI attitude especially amongst brighter students because they see this as yet another clear attempt, in an education system already in chaos and staffed by underqualified teachers, to shift even more responsibility onto the pupils’ shoulders. Responsibility that ought not to be there in the first place.
It's much more universal and complicated than that. One of the big issues schools and pedagogy in general struggle with is that our environment is far too safe in too many ways. For kids there is too few ways to learn from failures. Attempts to solve the issue look often like "Hey, kids, let's fall over now all at once in safest way possible and learn from it!". But it doesn't work at all. Real failures have to be unexpected, related to your decisions and really hurt so that you can learn from them.
PS. Btw, I am certain that this is the main cause of the mental health crisis amongst young people.
> One of the big issues schools and pedagogy in general struggle with is that our environment is far too safe in too many ways. For kids there is too few ways to learn from failures.
Its cause we already learned from our failures and make the world a safer place. In my youth we climbed on trees, one of my friend fall down broke his arm, the doctor couldn't fix it and he can not move the hand for the rest of his live. My friend would be happy do not been allowed to climb, or at least under safer conditions but have his hand moveable still. I burned myself really heavy with fireworks as teenager and have a huge scar from it. I never touched any firework after this but also never bought it for my kids, so they never had the chance to "learn" from making the the same mistake.
Keep in mind that while claiming the world is too safe you say this from a perspective of an survivor.
No. I'm making a claim that the world is too safe from a perspective of my students. I see it very clearly that a lot of anxiety actually originates from fear. They are afraid to explore environment because they are not allowed to do it. They are afraid of conflicts because they are not allowed to learn to resolve these themselves. They are afraid of resolve any of their problems themselves because they are not allowed to discover the power to do it etc.
There's a fine line between "we made the world safer" and "we made the world too constricting to learn". I would like my kids to be allowed to fail a bit more often, while still staying safe. I think we've swung too far in the safe direction.
I agree with you. Kids aren't allowed to fail anymore. And as a parent, when I try to let my kid fail, I get scolded for being a bad parent. Broken bones used to be a right of passage for kids. Now it happens far less. While a broken bone sucks, it teaches you important lessons! Don't do that again, and hey, you messed up but you're fine now.
As someone who broke a wrist by rear-ending a car on my 100cc scooter I must respectfully disagree. A broken bone is way superior learning experience compared to some bruises.
As in: you painfully ran into other things on your 100cc scooter before, but only when you actually broke a bone, did you actually stop driving dangerously on it?
Just one of many tragedies bound to one of the biggest problems in modern society – obsession to victims. Framing yourself or others as a victim gives you complete immunity and frees you from any responsibility for the consequences of your actions. This obsession has a potential to end the world we know.
I find it ironic that much of the reason why Arday received such accolades is that he painted himself as a victim who had managed, through grit and determination, to overcome adversity and achieve greatness. But then as soon as he experienced actual adversity - albeit self-inflicted, from being called out on his plagiarism and lies and harassment of those who tried to expose this - he decided to kill himself instead.
Which, I suppose, is the final chapter to his false victim narrative. A posthumous legacy that he was bullied to death, absolved of his misdeeds.
I've seen Kehinde Andrews defend Arday repeatedly about plagiarism.
He says
1. It was deemed "misquoting" and poor scholarly work that should've been caught by his advisor
2. And the university did an investigation and ruled it wasn't plagiarism.
Basically, the mom who will always love their ax murderer son.
Plus extremely easy to ablate, abliterate, apply steering vectors, etc.
DeepSeek V4 Flash is good enough to do a 1-shot steering vector sweep on itself.
Weights might seem like random numbers, but having weights gives you amazing, control, interpretability, and steering of the model. So many use cases; plus, you can keep it running as long as you want; no depreciations if you self-host, or find a provider that does.
64 year old nerd with social phobias here. When I was in school, I had to practice oral knowledge tests since grade one. I had my first oral exam in grade six (math) and 2-3 oral exams every year since then. If I hadn't had that experience, I would never have gotten into university. I still don't like verbal communications with people (especially in a tense situations like exam), I'm slow etc, but it's manageable because I had to practice it a lot. I don't think I would have survived in modern "the environment must be made suitable for everyone" school/university.
I’m a generation younger but I concur. I hated presenting and my anxiety was crippling. But the solution for that is to practice more, not to avoid it.
100% and I think this is echoed across the thread.
It does apply to many many things that are uncomfortable/hard.
You somehow have to power through the part where you suck a lot and don’t worry about it.
Mastering that is a huge advantage in life
I have some anxiety about public speaking or presenting to a group. Not debilitating but more than normal, or so I feel. But I find that once I get going it fades. Starting off is the peak of stress. So if the examiners are trained how to encourage a person to start talking, perhaps with some introductory conversation, and when questioning not being confrontational, that might help. The goal is to find out what they know, not how polished their presentation or debating skills are.
Would it help to be interviewed in a room where there is no other person, and you can be seen through a camera and communicate through magnetic speakers?
This is especially relevant today where there are thousands of attempts to create AI "voice to text" apps to automate away "boring" note taking. My daughter working in medical field says that she is contacted at least once a week "hey, we are startup having a novel idea for voice to text app". And she have to explain yet again that she doesn't want to automate note taking away. Writing is the process how we structure our thoughts and discover new things. This is how we learn.
I grew up and went into school in seventies in Soviet Union. I remember myself discovering local libraries, bookstores etc. I still love books, I have a lot of them, but process of discovery is very different. When I was young almost every book I found in library or bookstore about topic I was interested in, was almost certainly worth to read. Publishing books was slow and expensive process and there was a very slim chance that not good books were published at all. During last decades it hasn't been a case any more and I had to develop a skills how to find a stuff worth to read – what reviews to trust etc. In AI age these skills became almost worthless as well and I trust only recommendations from people I know and trust.
Shallow, haphazardly-written books full of mistakes were a thing even back then. It looks like the publication process expensiveness wasn't a good-enough filter since 1970s.
It's a pattern much wider than Google or event technology sector. It's very apparent in AI craze trough society, public governance sector, journalism etc. For people like me (growing up in seventies) it seems that there is teenagers everywhere and nobody is responsible for anything any more.
This. And I blame schools. People like to rage about kids reading a lot more books in the past, but I don't think that's was the main contributor. I went to school in seventies and if I look at my pupils now, there is no huge difference. Most of my classmates didn't like to read books either, let the others summarize books they had to read etc. But there is a huge gap in everyday reading – none of my classmates couldn't get away without opening textbooks. Almost all learning no matter of course (history, geography etc) followed a recipe "read 2-4 pages from textbook, then we'll discuss it in classroom etc". There is no such thing nowadays – almost all learning is "slides, videos, interactive animations" and textbooks are almost extinct.
Being close relative for several med and care workers we have discussed it a lot and consensus is that it really depends. For example relying on LLM summaries sounds great until it doesn't. It doesn't matter whether you misunderstand LLM summary or LLM "misunderstands" you – there are real risks involved, and you wouldn't want them to weigh on your conscience if they were to materialize.
Relying on LLM to summarize things for you has one more issue. To outsiders, this seems like a tedious process, but is actually very important part of the thought process. Wording your thoughts and writing these down helps people to discover new aspects of the problem. It's how people learn.
At the moment consensus is that it must not be banned, but also not mandated in any way - people must take responsibility, and they must be able to decide for themselves where and when the LLM use is justified and where it is not.
I don’t think that it is possible to both allow the use of LLM and not mandate them in modern metric driven work places. Either you ban them or you force people to use them for game theoretic reasons: they are slower than their peers and quality of the work is harder to measure than quantity. All you achieve is shifting the blame to the employees if the LLM messes up. Come to think of it, that probably is a highly desirable outcome for the decision makers, so perhaps that will actually be the policy that becomes universally adopted.
> I don’t think that it is possible to both allow the use of LLM and not mandate them in modern metric driven work places.
What I’d personally be most concerned about would be the risk of bad models instead of SOTA being used which would be especially error and hallucination prone.
If you’re gonna do it, do it right. Otherwise don’t bother at all.
> It doesn't matter whether you misunderstand LLM summary or LLM "misunderstands" you – there are real risks involved, and you wouldn't want them to weigh on your conscience if they were to materialize.
"fun" fact, a number (some? many? all?) of the LLM speech to text models will editorialize or hallucinate words for you, to make your speech fit the pattern it expects.
I don't think it's appropriate to use a model that can editorialize in a medical transcription setting. I feel that crosses a huge number of ethical lines.
> At the moment consensus is that it must not be banned, but also not mandated in any way - people must take responsibility, and they must be able to decide for themselves where and when the LLM use is justified and where it is not.
I have a really hard time understanding how supposed experts in their field, have been taken in so perfectly and so completely. You're a trained and certified medical/healthcare worker, responsible for the health, safety and well being of other humans, and yet willingly turn over parts of the process that exists to protect the safety and health of others, to a machine that you know can and will make mistakes you wouldn't or even couldn't ever reasonably make. You're supposed to make sure it works and is safe for everyone you're responsible for before you start using it... but then, I prefer healthcare that doesn't move fast, and break humans.
I'm sure someone will try to play devil's advocate and suggest it's a good thing to ration care, and that you have to acknowledge that you can't save everybody, faster is better after all But no, I'm angry enough about it that if a licensed person suggests that, I'll gladly complain to your licensing board (rhetorically speaking, I'm not gonna try to doxx anyone). You can't ethically argue for rationing care, and letting a machine known to make errors in ethics or care decisions, that you have been trained not to make. (Advocating for a reduction in the standard of care in order to increase profits.) (Yes, you're correct, if you're in a state of triage, you're required to, and in those cases, using an imperfect machine is possibly preferable, and probably ethical, but still objectionable. I currently refuse to believe that the US is in a state of emergency, but perhaps that's where I'm wrong) Part of your licensure you promised to prioritize patient care above personal gain. You can't then make decisions to experiment with systems you cant prove are safe.
I can understand in when SWEs ignore the best interests of the humans they're working for. But Doctors and Nurses? I guess I expected better from my former colleagues?
In a medical setting we first have to be clear about whether the LLM is acting as a transcriptionist or a scribe. Those are different roles. A transcriptionist merely writes down everything the clinician says verbatim, with perhaps a bit of formatting to fit a standard template. Speech recognition software has been used for transcription since before LLMs even existed. Sometimes a human transcriptionist will review and edit the software output. But ultimately the clinician is accountable for approving the document before it legally becomes part of the patient chart.
A medical scribe isn't just taking dictation, they're doing some level of interpretation and often entering structured, coded data directly into an EHR. This is a more complex role and requires some clinical skills. There are some new LLM products that automate this to an extent, but ultimately the licensed clinician is still legally accountable for what goes into the patient chart.
I can absolutely ethically argue for rationing care. All healthcare systems ration care although the means vary. Demand is effectively infinite, especially from older patients with complex or terminal conditions. Resources are finite.
I saw someone whose doctors were misled by this "transcriptionist vs scribe" difference in an ER situation. The LLM was listening and recording as the doctor asked questions and the patient answered. PT had suffered a falling episode. ER doctor asked if pt had any warning (e.g., was dizzy, faint, or unbalanced before fall). Pt said no. Later when reading final discharge report with pt we noticed that the LLM had inserted that the pt "experienced dizziness and then fell" which completely contradicted the pt's actual words.
Since then pt has had to re-explain to multiple doctors how the ER report was incorrect, to their usual MD skepticism. So, for now, I figure LLMs are for shite. Maybe in another 15 years...
And it pays to read everything on a medical report before leaving the facility.
Most humans use a default trust model for life; they've been lied to. That's part of why I'm angry, if you trust other people; why would you look for it? This entire article is about the fallout from not looking for it, and the resulting harms to pt care. So, it turns out, it was a mistake to adopt the new tech quickly; you know, as evidenced by the harms to patients?
So I don't know, why do you think they couldn't they predict the harms that I thought were obviously predictable, and then happened?
reply