I am now convinced that there are people who will swear up and down that there is blood and muscle inside car tires because they perform a similar function to human feet, but for machines.
To extend the analogy, there would also be people who would swear that cars are fake and can't possibly move because they're not alive and DONT have blood and muscle in them.
This has been a long standing debate, akin to discussing whether submarines can swim.
I’ve been using em dashes since I was 17 once I realized that they—when used without spaces—allow you to squeeze a few extra words past the Common App website’s word counter. Not exactly a strategy that works to your advantage these days.
> If we find reason to believe that a student or team has cheated on any assignment, we may inform the student or team promptly, or we may decide to silently accumulate evidence against the student or team on later assignments.
Why role play what you may or may not do if you encounter cheating.
The university has rules about how academic integrity is handled independent of the syllabus.
Including this line in the syllabus, and again at the top of the blog post is weird
That's not roleplaying, that's the basics of how you handle stuff like this. For lower-division level technical assignments, there's only so much free expression to extract signal from with regards to copying per assignment. Any individual assignment could likely be appealed as coincidence. If the same students turn in 2 more assignments that are suspiciously similar to the same other students, then you can have a pretty iron-clad argument for cheating.
Students cheating at lower-division university level courses is almost entirely a symptom of the students being poorly suited for the course material. Students who are interested and capable, but overwhelmed with the amount of work tend to just turn in incomplete assignments, or not turn in work at all. Encouraging the cheaters to drop while they can still get "dropped" rather than an "incomplete" or "F" is in everyone's best interest, as it provides an opportunity to consider a pivot to something that interests them more.
IMO, the overreaction by the professor was seeking further penalty for students who already dropped the course, or who would do so when confronted with their misbehavior. A student who cheats in CS is not necessarily a student who will cheat at chemistry, or business, or journalism. If they've already dropped out of CS, there's little benefit to be gained by pursuing the matter further.
> that's the basics of how you handle stuff like this
Anecdotal but not in my experience. The professor can inform students, collect evidence, etc without detailing each scenario in the syllabus.
Every CS class I’ve been a TA for had the same generic university provided statement on cheating.
The professors did not want to spend time thinking about or dealing with people cheating.
Every time MOSS flagged assignments they basically sat with me and the student and said “You are likely cheating. Please don’t do it again.”. No one ever admitted to cheating and no one ever got flagged twice.
I have such an insatiable curiosity, but it really strips the "magic" from the world more often than not. I think it's much more fun to make believe that no one understands LLMs, for example, than to know that not only do we understand them quite well enough, it is also quite boring in the end. As are all things once the curtain has been peeked.
The reason I added that quote, by the way, was because although nowadays people typically use "ignorance is bliss" as a blanket justification for willful ignorance, intellectual laziness, or avoiding uncomfortable truths, when English poet Thomas Gray coined the phrase in his 1742 poem (Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College), he was expressing a sentiment about the inevitable loss of childhood innocence.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
’Tis folly to be wise.
And yes, I knew I'd be downvoted for it.
To each his suff'rings: all are men,
Condemn'd alike to groan
"Coding Is Solved" should occur to you as a classic Motte & Bailey style argument [0] that relies on ambiguity. Would you agree with the following?
"Software architecture is solved, there is no longer any need for human intervention in the architecture or design of any software, nor in any subsequent stage"
Well, that is what Dario et al would like you to believe. However, the argument they can actually defend is:
"Programmers no longer need to type the code out by hand in most cases, they can get the result they want with (several iterations of) higher level instruction."
> even if that means I will never be able to be accepted there
You need Japanese blood (visibly), culture (language, manner, custom), and nationality to be "fully" accepted. This isn't new and has more to do with Japanese people themselves than with any legal restriction.
The irony here is that you bring up scamming the elderly, a process that works at scale precisely because people are controllable, and quite predictably at that. Where's the counterargument?
reply