Groups > sci.electronics.design > #743873

Re: we are just an investment toy

Date	2026-05-09 21:02 -0400
Subject	Re: we are just an investment toy
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
References	<m99pvkh7f5h3sofj82g8uijetqgku3lgq0@4ax.com> <69ffa50c$0$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <10toffc$cso$1@dont-email.me>
From	bitrex <user@example.net>
Message-ID	<69ffd913$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/9/2026 7:20 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/9/2026 2:20 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> There is also the concern that thanks to the AI investment (which 
>> semiconductor stocks are a proxy for) we're facing the first 
>> generation of functionally- illiterate college graduates who used 
>> ChatGPT to fudge their way through school, and won't have any 
>> competence in their fields. However given that there won't be any jobs 
>> available anyway, it sort of works itself out.
> 
> Calculators came along and we all feared no one would know how to
> "do arithmetic" -- let alone long division or cube roots.  Some
> retained those "manual" skillsets; others learned how to use the
> new *tool* to do the work for them.
> 
> [How often do YOU resort to pen and paper for anything more than
> simple arithmetic?]

I like doing calculus problems, ChatGPT is substantially better at 
calculus than I am.  Not bad at all for a bucket o bolts that wasn't 
even designed to do it in the first place, the way a CAS like 
Mathematica was.

> If AI's are going to be ubiquitous, wouldn't you want new entrants
> to the job market to know how to leverage those capabilities?  We
> are continuously facing innovations in society that devalue or
> revalue skills that had once been honed "for a purpose".
> 
> [How often do you write in cursive?  I remember being *graded*
> on penmanship!]
> 
> And, the only problem I see in the short term is teachers not adapting
> their teaching and grading to account for the LIKELY use of AIs in
> "homework assignments".
> 
> Ban electronics in rooms where exams are being administered and
> see how well the student fares without a crutch.  Treat "homework"
> as an optional exercise, that counts for *nothing* on the final
> grade.  Instead, it is the teacher's way of giving the student
> "practice exercises" that they can choose to avail themselves of...
> or ignore.  The "grade" on the homework is only meant to give the
> student some assessment of their current grasp of the materials
> covered on that set of problems.  If he thinks he already has a firm
> grasp, then why waste the time on the exercises?


Going back to blue books for everything worth any serious points is was 
a lot of professors/departments are already doing; these days it's 
common to end up with a strongly bimodal distribution, a smattering of 
80s and 90s and a bunch of 50s and nothing in-between, even though 
everyone's getting 100s on the homework.

Means of 65 on exams regularly aren't just a problem for students, it 
looks bad for professors and causes management and parents alike to 
freak out, they don't figure they're paying $58,000 a year for Johnny to 
have a 2.1 GPA.

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-07 07:44 -0700
  Re: we are just an investment toy Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-05-07 17:25 +0200
  Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-08 02:38 +1000
    Re: we are just an investment toy Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-07 17:59 +0100
    Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 01:28 -0700
      Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-08 22:39 +1000
        Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 09:43 -0700
          Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-08 18:15 +0000
            Re: we are just an investment toy Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-05-08 22:25 +0200
              Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-08 20:54 +0000
            Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 10:47 -0700
              Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 11:21 -0700
              Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-10 04:49 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 12:06 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-09 19:23 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-09 13:13 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-09 21:00 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-09 17:17 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-10 20:40 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-10 16:39 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-11 20:13 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-11 06:48 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-12 00:38 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-11 09:08 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-12 14:19 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-12 01:52 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-13 01:34 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-12 08:44 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 09:50 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 09:58 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 10:56 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-12 11:25 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-13 20:01 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-11 20:20 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-11 14:02 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-11 21:14 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-11 19:49 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-10 20:35 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-10 06:16 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-11 01:41 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-05-10 16:30 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-10 16:37 +0000
  Re: we are just an investment toy someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-05-08 03:45 +0000
  Re: we are just an investment toy bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-05-09 17:20 -0400
    Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-09 22:17 +0000
    Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-09 16:20 -0700
      Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-09 17:26 -0700
      Re: we are just an investment toy bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-05-09 21:02 -0400
        Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-09 18:23 -0700
          Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-10 17:15 +0000
            Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-10 14:32 -0700
              Re: we are just an investment toy JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 23:43 +0100
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-10 15:56 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 00:04 +0100
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-10 17:27 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-11 19:01 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-11 14:48 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-11 22:16 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-11 15:47 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-12 17:57 +0000
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-12 12:29 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-11 14:59 -0700
          Re: we are just an investment toy bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-05-11 22:45 -0400
            Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-11 20:26 -0700
            Re: we are just an investment toy Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-15 09:21 +0000
              Re: we are just an investment toy Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-15 06:50 -0700
            Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-15 06:27 -0700
              Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-16 01:47 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-15 11:24 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-21 14:24 +1000
                Re: we are just an investment toy john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-21 06:33 -0700
                Re: we are just an investment toy Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-22 01:53 +1000
      Re: we are just an investment toy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 10:07 -0700

csiph-web