[HN Gopher] What Happened When I Tried to Replace Myself with Ch...
___________________________________________________________________
What Happened When I Tried to Replace Myself with ChatGPT in My
English Class
Author : lapcat
Score : 57 points
Date : 2025-08-02 17:32 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (lithub.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lithub.com)
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| What a lovely essay. Reminds me of the way I loved the liberal
| arts growing up. I missed having classes like that in college
| (AP'd and ACT'd my way out of most requirements).
|
| English teachers seem especially prone to that friendly and
| sporting demeanor the author has. Professors from the engineering
| schools are far more prescriptive, probably due to the nature of
| the material.
| resource_waste wrote:
| >English teachers
|
| Since discovering Analytical Philosophy, I think it is
| irresponsible to combine Nonfiction and fiction under the term
| 'English'.
|
| As an engineer, I write emails, they need to be clear, factual,
| etc... This is in huge contrast with fiction, where writers get
| merit for being intentionally ambiguous with things like
| metaphors and symbolism.
|
| What an incredible disservice to students and society to
| consider English(nonfiction) an 'art'. It should be treated
| like math and science.
|
| I had to become a middle aged adult and learn this for myself.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| More traditionally you'd study "rhetoric", the art of making
| your arguments appealing. It doesn't really matter whether
| the things you say are true or false.
|
| Rhetoric is valuable in any writing endeavor; clarity is only
| valuable sometimes.
| aquariusDue wrote:
| For a funny take on the whole "rhetoric" is the use and
| abuse of logic some people might enjoy How to Win Every
| Argument by Madsen Pirie which also happens to be where I
| plucked the tagline regarding rhetoric from. It's a pretty
| easy book to go through in toilet break sized increments,
| the author goes through different fallacies and how they're
| employed one by one along with various rhetorical devices.
|
| Though a few years ago when I searched for a book on
| rhetoric and making convincing arguments Office Of
| Assertion by Scott Crider also popped up, but it's aimed
| more at written rhetoric instead of what most people have
| in mind.
| thisoneisreal wrote:
| To back up your point, I kind of hated English class until my
| senior year of high school when I took AP English Language
| (nonfiction), after which I started drinking books from a
| firehose.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| All the best writers that I know in the sense that you mean
| (communicating information precisely), including non-native
| speakers, are also avid fiction readers. Many also write
| fiction or prose for fun. Familiarity and fluency with the
| details of usage and vocabulary are what let one employ these
| things precisely for whatever purpose, fictional or not.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| > I had to become a middle aged adult and learn this for
| myself.
|
| This is a cliche.
|
| You can't write precisely without an understanding of how
| language becomes imprecise, of its fundamental instability.
| Precision and delicate use is an accident when it does
| happen, and its happening can never be proven. We must have
| faith in the accident.
| aquariusDue wrote:
| I agree that it's a good distinction to make. Personally I
| haven't thought about it till I read On Writing Well by
| William Zinsser. In the book he specifically teaches writing
| nonfiction and even shares an anecdote where he was a guest
| on a radio show promoting a writing conference and was
| annoyed with the host because he conflated writing with
| literary works.
|
| So yeah, I recommend the book to people interested in
| writing.
| patrakov wrote:
| This essay resonated with me because it highlighted the
| similarity between AI-written texts, describing the result as a
| word salad. And this also reminded me about some words from my
| teacher of Russian Literature: that the "bright future" themed
| novels of the pre-WW2 Soviet writers -- works produced under
| strict political control -- read like one big novel without a
| beginning and an end, and not as separate works.
|
| And this grayness and sameness is what happens when people are
| forced to "think" as a chorus, either by the authorities or their
| censorship, or voluntarily by using the same AI's help.
| prisenco wrote:
| Or by market consolidation, as we're experiencing now.
| brudgers wrote:
| _Altman's analogy didn't hold up. Calculators were
| uncontroversial_
|
| Calculators are uncontroversial now. But when they first became
| cheap and widely available, they were not allowed in math
| classes. Then only four function calculators, then graphing
| calculators. But still today, programmable calculators are
| prohibited in many academic contexts.
| blamestross wrote:
| Turns out education done right is vaguely a speed-run of how
| the knowledge was developed. Adding calculating tools makes
| sense as you advance the the corresponding point in the
| process. Honestly, I think there should be a chunk of precal
| and calc where they use slide rules only, then calculators of
| increasing complexity (or just increasingly complex features of
| one calculator).
|
| "When will I use this in real life" is a declaration that you
| have no expectations of learning the next lesson that builds
| upon this one.
| ortusdux wrote:
| The concepts of adding machines and calculators were also
| slowly phased in over the span of a century. The first
| commercially successfully adding machines hit the market in the
| 1890's, and pocket calculators took off in the 1980's. AI went
| from theory to answering hand written math homework questions
| from a photograph in a few years.
| ghaff wrote:
| I only had a calculator (at a technical university) starting
| in the mid-1970s. Prices were dropping like a stone in about
| that period. In high school it was pretty much slide rules.
| grimnebulin wrote:
| As a teen in the late 80's I had an HP calculator that I
| programmed to compute molecular weights given an input string
| like "H2SO4". It felt like having a secret superpower,
| especially when I participated in competitive exams. I was a
| very straightlaced kid and would not have used the program if
| it such things were explicitly forbidden, but as far as I could
| tell, they never were.
| viraptor wrote:
| Reminds me of when I write a j2me app for matrix
| diagonalization because we could use the old feature phones
| as calculators. Nobody thought we'd be mad enough to use
| those to cheat...
| QuantumNomad_ wrote:
| Do you still have the source code for the j2me app?
|
| I hadn't yet learned to program back when I was still using
| a feature phone, but I have a lot of fond memories of J2ME
| applications that I installed on my phones. Mostly games,
| of course.
|
| I encourage anyone that wrote J2ME games and utilities, no
| matter how small or big, to upload the source to GitHub :)
| mrbungie wrote:
| Did you tell your teachers about your superpower?
|
| But normally it depends on the subject and if the
| automation/machine solves the primary skill being teached or
| if its just a "secondary/tertiary" skill. Are you in a
| Calculus 101 class? Calculators like TI-89 are likely to be
| prohibited when examining for deriving analytical solutions
| for derivatives and integrals.
|
| Statistics, Physics or any other subjects that needs applied
| maths? Such a calculator is probably a minimum requirement to
| take the course.
| grimnebulin wrote:
| I was on pretty good terms with my chemistry teacher,
| so...maybe? It's been a while, but I don't remember either
| showing it off or taking pains to keep it secret. To
| adults, that is; my nerdy friends and I delighted in
| showing off the cool stuff we did with our calculators.
|
| I vaguely remember thinking that one likely reason
| shortcuts like mine were not prohibited was because no one
| in charge suspected that such things were even possible
| with current technology, or if they were, that a child
| would be able to exploit it. But as long as I kept to the
| letter of the rules, I considered myself ethically in the
| clear.
| mrbungie wrote:
| > But as long as I kept to the letter of the rules, I
| considered myself ethically in the clear.
|
| Yeah, totally, just to be clear I'm not judging.
|
| In fact, if you programmed it to handle those operations,
| one could argue you had already learned a big chunk of
| what was going to be measured in the exams.
|
| Kind of similar to the paradox of creating and using
| cheat sheets, is highly likely you're accidentally
| learning about the subject matter in the process of
| writing the sheet, sometimes up to a point where the
| cheat sheet is not necessary anymore.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > Kind of similar to the paradox of creating and using
| cheat sheets, is highly likely you're accidentally
| learning about the subject matter in the process of
| writing the sheet, sometimes up to a point where the
| cheat sheet is not necessary anymore.
|
| The problem is (example from mathematics): even if you
| are capable of deriving some formula (you thus understood
| the topic well), it takes a lot of time in the exam.
| Looking at the cheat sheet is much faster - in particular
| when the time is somewhat precious in the exam.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| My HP-49g+ was definitely load-bearing going through EE. I
| was never much good at memorizing big sheets of formulas
| but I was pretty good at memorizing a couple of simple
| differential equations (e.g. I(t) = C dv(t)/dt was easy,
| v(t) = v_s * e^(-t/RC) wouldn't stick). So I'd just...
| derive all of the "special case" formulas from scratch
| during the exam. Usually they were simple enough that I
| could just get them into the right form but I'd lean on my
| calculator doing the symbolic integration for me when they
| weren't.
|
| The other thing it was awesome for was solving systems of
| linear equations. I could do the nodal or loop analysis
| just fine, I'd write down the matrix that represented the
| system of equations and then just punch that matrix in and
| invert it.
| jmholla wrote:
| A related personal story: During my statistics course in
| high school, we discovered that the TI-89 had some
| statistical functions that the TI-83 didn't have. So, the
| rule was that if we wanted to use the TI-89 ones, you had
| to write an application for the TI-83 one. It was a great
| way to really learn the algorithms.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Stuff like that seems harder to do than learning the damn
| thing correctly
| Spivak wrote:
| The calculator tricked them into studying. Same trick as
| the "one note card, front back" but in this case
| accidental.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| I you like Chemistry, then yes. If you like programming but
| dislike chemistry, then no.
| taneq wrote:
| I always felt (and my maths teachers agreed) that if I
| understood something sufficiently to automate it, I'd
| proved my point and didn't need to do the rest of the
| exercises.
| grimnebulin wrote:
| I could do it correctly from the get-go. The program just
| saved me from drudgery many times over. Probably enough
| times to recoup my time investment to create the program,
| but in any case I enjoyed coding for its own sake.
| the_af wrote:
| >> _Altman's analogy didn't hold up. Calculators were
| uncontroversial_
|
| > _Calculators are uncontroversial now. But when they first
| became cheap and widely available, they were not allowed in
| math classes._
|
| The author of TFA means specifically for his cohort of
| students, not in general. He polled his students, and the
| result was that they thought calculators weren't seen as
| unethical but they were more skeptical/uncertain about AI. By
| his current students, now, not in general.
| voxl wrote:
| No middle schooler is using a graphing calculator on their
| algebra exam
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| I literally used a graphing calculator on my algebra exams in
| middle school.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's also an extremely misleading comparison. Basic calculator
| functions do not in the slightest replace anything taught in a
| maths class. Using ChatGPT not just to write entire paragraphs
| (replacing composition), or even providing the writer with
| ideas (replacing the creative aspects of writing) isn't
| comparable to adding two large numbers together.
|
| The equivalent in maths would be if you handed students a
| theorem prover or have Wolfram Alpha give you step-by-step
| solutions and obviously nobody to this day allows this, because
| like ChatGPT for writing it'd defeat the point, that students
| think.
|
| When I was in uni we were allowed basic but not programmable
| calculators during exams and a lot of CS classes even were
| pen&paper, if the prof was a bit hardcore
| verelo wrote:
| Totally correct. In the 90's as a kid in school using a
| calculator was highly debated amongst teachers and the ability
| to bring one out on your desk depended on the teacher.
|
| In grade 2 i had a teacher who would say "I don't believe in
| erasers", you know, the things that "undo" pencil. As a ~6 yr
| old i actually didn't understand this phrase: "Well I have one,
| they're real!"
| treyd wrote:
| The point that you're (and everyone is) glossing over here is
| relative positions on the skill gradient.
|
| A first grader probably would be prohibited from using any kind
| of calculator on arithmetic tests, 4-fn or not. But 8th graders
| are usually permitted scientific (non-programmable)
| calculators.
|
| As you go up in grade level, you "get access to" calculators
| capable of functionality at the level below you. Because the
| point is that when we're educating students we want them to
| actually learn the subject matter, but once we've deemed them
| to have understood it and we have them move onto the next goal,
| we give them the tools to make that prior goal easier. We
| lessen the burden of the little mechanical concepts they
| already know so that they have an easier time becoming familiar
| with the next more advanced concepts.
|
| AI systems are _so_ much more advanced than what 's capable on
| a TI programmable calculator. It's hard to draw clean
| boundaries around the tiers and enforce them by telling the
| model "help the user with tasks of tier 1-4 but not 5+". That's
| the issue, that it's really infeasible to strictly use them
| strictly as learning tools. You can _almost_ do it with a lot
| of self-discipline and self-reflection to analyze your own
| workflow, but it 's not generalizable across domains.
| pishpash wrote:
| Why can't they be restricted to produce only the concepts of
| a grade below you? It sounds doable and is actually a great
| idea.
| tomsmeding wrote:
| How are you going to ensure that it is _impossible_ for the
| student to work around whatever measures you take?
| cyberax wrote:
| > Calculators are uncontroversial now.
|
| Yes, they are uncontroversially bad. Schools that don't use
| them have higher scores.
|
| Unfortunately, even SAT/ACT have calculator slop now.
| analog31 wrote:
| >>> imagine how radically math class must have changed when
| calculators became widely affordable
|
| It didn't.
|
| I was in math class when calculators were introduced. At least
| for high school level and beyond, the curricula were designed
| to make problems solvable without calculators, and they weren't
| of much use. This was still the case when I taught an undergrad
| college math class in 1997. Graphing calculators were allowed,
| and the kids who tried to use them just screwed themselves up.
|
| I would have gladly changed the curriculum to use calculators
| and computers from the very beginning. As tools, and not just
| to administer the same old exercises and quizzes. Give them
| Jupyter Notebook. Math education has never been a success
| story.
|
| Education faces a dilemma, which is that it has always used
| heuristics to guide study and assess performance. Exercises
| such as the "three paragraph essay" had no use in the real
| world, even long before AI could generate them on demand. When
| one of those heuristics is broken, another one has to be found.
| Even word processing forced teachers to grade papers on
| content, rather than mechanics.
| aydyn wrote:
| > most students are overcommitted; college is expensive, so they
| need good grades for a good return on their investment; and AI is
| everywhere, including the post-college workforce.
|
| Yeah. Overcommitted to partying and skipping class.
|
| Has this author ever been to an average American university?
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| Speak for yourself maybe
| aydyn wrote:
| Speaking for myself, has the author ever been to an average
| American university?
| DaSHacka wrote:
| I have, I'd recommended speaking for yourself
| warmedcookie wrote:
| Heh, especially the non-major freshman classes. A few weeks
| in and half the seats are empty compared to the first day
| of class.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Overcommitted in this context probably means "has a schedule
| that is packed too full"
|
| Between work and school and other responsibilities they have no
| time to decompress so they burn out
| yoz-y wrote:
| The only time I've had as much free time as in university was
| in my first job.
| airstrike wrote:
| Since you said "in university" I assume that wasn't in the
| U.S.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| What people are telling you in the comments is that your
| perspective is not universal. I've personally only ever skipped
| one class in my time in undergrad (as an American at an
| American university), and not for a party. I'm not a special
| case or anything, those classes are very expensive!
| hansvm wrote:
| Let's rephrase it to "most of even the best students" then.
|
| I went to about the cheapest US school that had a decent math
| program. It costs $17,500/yr between tuition, rent, books, and
| rice and beans.
|
| That's a lot of money. It's over $10/hr in pre-tax income, even
| if you work full-time all year, which isn't an easy bar to
| clear in the sort of towns with cheaper universities. Wages
| don't scale well enough with more expensive tuition for there
| to be substantially better options.
|
| Classes are another 22+ hours each week (you could complete
| school in 3-4 yrs instead, but that makes it even harder to
| afford and doesn't really reduce the workload enough to make a
| difference, however I'll also factor in a 15-hour workload
| later).
|
| The rule of thumb is that you should study 3 hours for every
| hour of class. I found that approximately correct. Some classes
| took a lot less. Some took a little more. Combined with the
| self study you need in adjacent topics, 3hrs is a fair bit low.
|
| During the school year then, you have something that looks like
| a 128hr/week schedule, or 100hr if you're finishing in 4yrs,
| and still 60hr/week even if you're finishing in 4yrs and
| racking up $70k in debt.
|
| Don't get me wrong; I had free time (I worked more during the
| summer, less during the school year, allowing loans to cover
| the slack, which bought extra time here and there), but it
| wasn't exactly a party either. When I skipped class it was
| because I had to work, had to study for some other more
| pressing class, or found it more efficient to study the book
| than to try to understand that particular lecturer.
| lapcat wrote:
| It me.
|
| But I read an article recently about the death of partying in
| the USA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514550
| Aurornis wrote:
| > There are valid reasons why college students in particular
| might prefer that AI do their writing for them: most students are
| overcommitted;
|
| Tangentially: I've helped out some college students with
| mentoring and advice from time to time. One common theme I've
| noticed is that their class load virtually doesn't matter. They
| find ways to run out of time no matter how much free time they
| start with.
|
| We all like to imagine the poor, overburdened college student
| working 2 jobs and attending classes to make ends meet when
| reading statements like that. But to be completely honest, the
| students like that usually have their time management on point.
| The hardest ones to coach were the students who had no real
| responsibilities outside of classes, yet who found their free
| time slipping through their fingers no matter what they did.
|
| Among all of the other problems with easy AI cheating, I wonder
| how much the availability of these tools will encourage even more
| procrastination. Feeling like you always have the fallback option
| of having ChatGPT write the homework for you leaves the door open
| to procrastinating even longer
|
| > I asked my students to complete a baseline survey registering
| their agreement with several statements, including "It is
| unethical to use a calculator in a math class"
|
| Unless there was more to this survey, this wording seems
| misleading. In a college-level math class, using a calculator is
| a common expectation depending on the type of class and the
| problem. The students would probably think of their TI-89, not a
| magical AI calculator that could solve every freeform problem for
| them.
| altairprime wrote:
| [delayed]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Here are some of the essay topics I had them read aloud:
|
| [...] I expected them to laugh, but they sat in silence. When
| they did finally speak, I am happy to say that it bothered them.
| They didn't like hearing how their AI-generated submissions, in
| which they'd clearly felt some personal stake, amounted to a big
| bowl of bland, flavorless word salad._
|
| But that's what it has been trained on - almost all academic
| writing _is_ bland flavorless word salad, and this is extremely
| noticeable in title fads. I have a nearly decade-long game
| running with my friend where me make up absolutely bullshit
| concepts that could nevertheless be plausibly published in a
| journal, and the process has been going on long before that.
|
| 'Verbing the noun: towards a genericization theory of
| expressivity in high-entropy counter-heterogeneity' describes an
| ongoing problem in academic writing where novelty is
| deprioritized in favor of acceptability by an evermore tightly
| circumscribed set of peer professionals whose socioeconomic
| interests favor the establishment of intellectual stasis that
| maximally conserves positionality in a quais-Simmelian network
| space parameterized by income, tenure proximity, and citation
| count.
|
| Or put more clearly, the more academics write to impress each
| other instead of to reach the public, the more generic their
| titles and language will be. Being able to parse and regurgitate
| wordy titles and abstracts constitutes table stakes in academia,
| so the incentives tilt toward burying the lede any original
| proposals as deeply as possible so as the minimize the career-
| damaging possibility of rejection on technical/syntactical
| grounds.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-04 23:01 UTC)