I got graded homework even in a few college courses and thought it was dumb, but then I realized it's always in the low-tier classes where they can't trust the students to study on their own. Those who skip homework hurt themselves by doing poorly on exams, but that's not enough to stop them. This ruins the curve in ways the instructor can't really fix unless they're prepared to fail half the class, which they aren't.
BTW / Offtopic:
I have read some weeks ago, today if you are hosting a party for your kids birthday, parents are preparing "give away bags" for handing over when leaving the party
The often underworked (most are autograding these days and reading old powerpoints rather than do real curriculum development) and (for the quality) overpaid teachers/professors will mass riot against this because it means they might have to actually teach. We might even get yet more anti-boy treatment than already exists among them as a social class in retaliation.
Please also abolish PowerPoint and force oral exams while you are at it.
Teachers are also luddites as a social class. Math teachers cried about calculators yet everyone of them who refused to adapt did disservice to their students (especially anyone doing statistics). My state's education system is utter trash despite being well off economically because of strong teachers unions keeping them from undergoing even a tiny bit of scrutiny.
They do not deserve the social credit/grace that they get. They are ultimately gatekeepers, whose extremely biased decisions in grading/treatment of their flocks decide which kid grows up on the streets and which kid grows up to eat lobster thermador every day.
Teachers also should not be disciplinarians. Children with discipline problems bad enough to disrupt a whole class should be thrown out of the class room as basically the only thing a teacher does for "discipline". The "right to education for the shit kids means we can't do that" framing is such trash for those who want an education and will inevitably be disrupted by a small minority of terrible students.
Also it's interesting that one of the only other things Max Stirner wrote about besides philosophy was education and his myriad problems with it (given his history as a school teacher).
I like school and think teachers are good and that your comment is the nonsensical ranting of a lunatic and as a result don't feel compelled in the slightest to read whatever it is that you linked.
This is the answer. Many (all?) European schools don’t give homework (this is partly because of the way the grad programs work). It’s on the students to study in order to pass the (difficult) exams.
There is no such thing as a European school. Each country is different. And if the country is a federation, each state might be different. And we have homework in most European countries I’m aware of.
Ah you’re talking about university. There isn’t a European-wide rule or custom for homework, it will very likely be up to each university and/or teacher to decide if they want to give homework or not
Seems this did effectively abolish homework if AI is now doing it all for them. The result seems to be that fewer students pass the exams, not more.
As with any skill, practice is necessary to achieve competence. If homework is no longer a viable way to force students to practice, you'll need to find some replacement, you can't just abolish it and expect there to be no negative consequences.
It is what all my European peers reported to me during grad school, and you should care because it is an example of a system which solves this problem successfully (at the university level).
Oh, university level? The article is about 12-18yo. American grad school already doesn't have graded homework, and undergrad sometimes does or sometimes not.
everything you build potentially increases the surface area of attack. If the benefit of building it is zero or negative then all you've done is increase your risk profile.
unjokingly I think the fact that we removed grayed out buttons for "the button just doesn't appear" is one of the more confusing UI trends of our day and the sight of a grayed out button warms my heart
> Reconsider disabled controls. Disabled controls can be hard to use because users literally have to deduce why they are disabled. Disable a control when users expect it to apply and they can easily deduce why the control is disabled. Remove the control when there is no way for users to enable it or they don't expect it to apply, or leave it enabled, but provide an error message when it is used incorrectly.
> Tip: If you aren't sure whether you should disable a control or provide an error message, start by composing the error message that you might provide. If the error message contains helpful information that target users aren't likely to quickly deduce, leave the control enabled and provide the error. Otherwise, disable the control.
Unfortunately, that nuance has been lost in the modern version of the guidelines with no mention of disabled buttons at all [2]
> Remove the control when there is no way for users to enable it
That guidance is unhinged, and is exactly the anti-pattern that upthread points to that needs to die.
Removing the control is like gaslighting the user: they're looking for "how to do X?" and documentation, Internet searchable screenshots, and, god help us, now AI, are pointing them at a button that does not exist. I cannot tell you how many times I've frustratingly circled that mulberry bush as a user, for a wide range of products.
No, the button (and all other UI elements) should always present/be visible, and if there is a disabled control, there should be a HIG-standardized way to determine why it is disabled. (I.e., a mandatory tool-tip that states what actions would cause the control to enable, though I'd accept that tool-tips themselves are not always discoverable. You could have a small, standardized icon on the disabled control, like an :information-symbol-emoji: that might hit towards the tool-tip, or just put in underneath.)
I agree, just gray it out and have a little question mark button next to it.
Also, way more question mark buttons. I don’t care how well named people think things are. They’re not, and there’s always some hidden behavior you just have to know behind every setting. Include the question mark.
I think the button shouldn't appear if the user doesn't have the access to do it (eg. not an admin, has view rights only, etc).
However, if the user can and they expect to do it, but is in a mode/state which doesn't allow them to do it, greyed out buttons absolutely.
In some cases, greyed out buttons should be clickable (eg. forms) and that should tell the user what is wrong. Looking at you, billion dollar airline, where I couldn't complete my checkin due to this annoyance.
Also, what happened to hover messages and little (?) marks? Every software behaves like it expects me to know what to do from Day 1.
I agree for admin stuff, but certain lack of permissions hiding stuff is annoying. It's nice for things to be disabled and have a hover text explaining why it's disabled. Also, yes, (?) and hover text in general is severely underused in popular software.
I wish every button or menu option that has a shortcut would show me its shortcut on hover or in-place so I didn't have to find it in the manual or buried in the settings menu.
Worse is when the hotkey is underlined but doesn't actually work (multiple buttons with same hotkey, and instead of switching between them it just doesn't do anything. Admittedly this is rare). Or when the list is an MRU that can be navigated with the first letter of the item names, but some letters are reserved for static functions (looking at classic shell start menu: I can't start certain programs from the MRU or pinned list without the mouse because (A)pps Sh(u)tdown (S)ettings are reserved. Numeric helps with MRU, but can't be used in multiple places for the same reason)
> Also, what happened to hover messages and little (?) marks? Every software behaves like it expects me to know what to do from Day 1.
I truly hate fast-food kiosks for this reason: most expect me to be familiar with their offerings and the menu system of that kios. I relatively rarely visit such places and I was better off with a human asking me 1-3 short questions and paying. I'm not paid to know this shit, I'm the customer. Guess I'm just too old, younger people love this crap for some reason.
Younger people love not having to wait in line.
If I'm really hungry and I'm stopping at McDonald's because it's the only place close enough to the bus stop, then I want to order and pay, not wait for the person ahead of me.
If I only have one item at the market/drug store, I want to use a self-checkout machine, and I don't want to be waiting behind someone with a cart full of items who doesn't know they have to actually unload their cart for the cashier, or who decides to go back for "one more thing" that happens to be at the back of the store where they get caught up talking to someone they know.
A fallacy that a lot of people have is that productivity equals progress. Programmers (and their managers) using LOC as a target metric, writers using words/chapters written, etc. For some reason this fallacy is reinvented and repeated every so often.
This line should be auto-pinned at the top of every single HN thread where the topic crosses over into target markets for products. (I'm joking, but the point stands - HN is both wildly different than the average individual and many of those on HN overlook that fact)
> With a good RNG it should not be possible to predict future numbers based on past numbers so players cannot manipulate card rewards in their favour based on combat actions, right?
I think you're overlooking the distinction between seeded and unseeded runs. An unseeded run is a run in which the player enters the game not knowing what the seed of the RNG is and not being able to pick it (this is the default mode). A seeded run is where the player provides the RNG seed. Generally, things like unlocks and steam achievements can only be earned on unseeded runs, but players want to be able to play seeded runs anyway. Of course all runs have an RNG seed: an unseeded run is when the seed is itself chosen at random, a seeded run is when the player specifies the seed.
Imagine a game with a standard deck of cards played over several rounds, where your opponent performs actions in response to your actions. The deck of cards is shuffled pseudo-randomly between every round. Every time you make a move, your opponent has N valid moves, and picks between them pseudo-randomly.
Players play a seeded run because they want to retry the same set of challenges, because they are asking themselves "if I had done this, would I have won" or "if I had done this, what would have happened".
So in this example, given a known seed: in round 1, my cards are shuffled this way, and in round 2, my cards a shuffled this other way, regardless of which moves I make in round 1.
If the opponent picks its response using the same RNG that shuffles the deck, the players actions in round 1 would change the shuffling of the deck in round 2. This would change the design parameters of what a seeded run means: it's no longer giving the guarantee "the deck is shuffled in the same way in round 2 regardless of what you do in round 1", which is the experience the designer wants to create and what the players want to play. Players might, e.g., say "who can get the highest score on this seed", they might search for the easiest or most difficult seeds, or they might search for seeds where particularly unlikely sequences of events are guaranteed to occur, because perhaps this sequence of events is so unlikely that a human would have to play a hundred million games to witness that sequence organically, and people want to see that sequence of events because it's interesting in some way. It's designed this way so that if you play the same seed, certain random events play out the same way, i.e., non-randomly.
normal people talk and write with some notion of meter, the cadence of communicating where pauses are inserted at places that naturally suit the speaker (and listener) to pause for thought. LLM's don't really do that, they just write a bunch of sentences.
> Researchers have found that some neurons inside the FFN are strongly associated with specific concepts or facts. One neuron might activate strongly on Eiffel-Tower-related text. Another on programming languages. Another on past-tense verbs.
People don't really write like this and they don't really talk like this (and no, people don't necessarily write exactly how they talk because they don't read exactly how they listen; the written word can be backtracked while the heard cannot, and speakers/writers know this, either consciously or unconsciously). A person would probably structure this more like:
> Researchers have found that some neurons inside the FFN are strongly associated with specific concepts or facts. For example, there could be one neuron that activates strongly on Eiffel-Tower-related text, another that activates strongly on programming languages, a third neuron activating on past-tense verbs, and so on.
Usually people wouldn't write "Another on programming languages." as a standalone sentence like that because the periods introduce an unnatural pause like they're giving a TED talk, unless of course they were punctuating that way for effect, but you'd essentially never communicate with that effect full time.
I don’t disagree with your conclusion that this is likely ai rewritten, but I do find it strange that you say “normal people don’t write like this” when it is mimicking how people write, and using patterns I have seen people write. I think models are at the point where style is not really reliable as an indicator anymore.
people sure do write like that, in novels. nobody writes scientific articles like novels, because scientific articles don't need to maximally capture audience attention. the purpose of a scientific article is to convey information - this pursuit is not assisted by punchy prose.
A lot of the common patterns people ping as AI (like "it's not X, it's Y"*) are marketing-speak, of which there's a lot of on the internet. It's applying existing patterns in unusual locations, ignoring the original context.
The one they're pointing out (the short punchy sentences) also apply to things like politicians and news articles. Blog posts are a bit odd.
* And here I mean those literal exact words. People are also extrapolating to similar patterns that use different or more words than "it's not" and "it's", but those flow better and aren't what I'm referring to here.
I'm sure there's plenty of writing in the above style to be found on the Internet, and hence having been trained on by the LLM. I'm also not a fan of this style, and in particular I'd say it's rarely or never found in scientific / technical writing meant to convey understanding rather than sell or hype. So here it's IMO more of a style mismatch.
No, but sufficiently-advanced overfitting would lead to to the model keeping track of an author stylistic profile, in the same way it keeps track of the plot of a story it's writing (i.e., badly, but well enough that you have to pay attention to notice that something is wrong).
It is trained on its own slop. They haven’t trained these models on books for three years at this point. Only on generated slop. (And RL slop upvotes/downvotes from users)
