7,851 karma · joined November 29, 2009
I wish the article could have been a lot tighter and shorter. This is not earth shattering information that requires a New Yorker length piece of investigative journalism.
The part that is more difficult is take-home work, and I think the solution is that instead of being something that you turn in for credit, it needs to move to being more of a chance to practice for in-person exams.
What about essays? I've taught classes where students had to write essays in class, in person. On paper, with a pen (this may no longer be allowed on many campuses because of access and perceived fairness reasons, which IMO is a shame, but it is what it is). I think the traditional assignment of "write a 15 page paper on XYZ" is probably done. Instead students will have to prepare to write an essay in class by reading the source material (books, papers, etc) and converse with AIs that are hopefully not hallucinating, to get an understanding of the material and then come to class and be prepared to write about it.
It's a new world, but one we can adapt to.
I personally believe this (that people are generally honest and good). BUT, the numbers don't lie: 30% of Princeton students admit to having cheated on an exam. This is a "your house is on fire" moment. An honor code has has to be enforced, and that is apparently not happening at Princeton. Frankly, as someone working at a school that also has an honor code (most do, in my experience), that is where the problem lies: if you turn a blind eye to violators, it sends the message to everyone that the honor code is just words, it doesn't mean anything.
So sad to think that a generation or two ago, everyone wanted to emulate the HP Way. Now all of that is gone and unless you are a superstar, you're just a commodity to be managed, and extinguished when the time comes.
The unfortunate thing is that the area of biology he has drawn people to is difficult to make a living in. Jobs are few, there is intense compettion for them, they don't pay well, and there is often little job security. In some ways it is the Art History of a STEM discipline.
Among all of his accomplishments, one of the most important is the paper he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich on the coevolution of plants and the animals that eat them. It demonstrated the "arms race" where plants have evolved the ability to produce toxic chemicals to prevent herbivory while at the same time animals that feed on plants have evolved adaptations that allow them to detoxify these chemicals or otherwise not be affected by them. It is considered one of the foundational papers of modern ecology.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Peter H. Raven. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964...
Addressing climate change requires massive changes and a lot of political courage. There is none.
One of the nice things about HN is that we treat each other respectfully, even when someone posts a comment we may disagree with.
The longer term issue is evolved weed resistance due to its over use with "Roundup Ready" crops and for end of the season dry down.
We are all different, and I think where we each land on the security <--> privacy continuum will depend on who we are.
This is also true of constitutional rights. The US constitution was written by a small group of wealthy white men. At the time of its drafting, some people were considered property and had no freedom. Women didn't have the same rights as men and were not allowed to vote. Where the framers landed on the security <--> privacy continuum may have been a very different place than many US residents would land today. Rape, murder, property crimes, etc... even today some groups are much more often victims than others. Safety is a much larger concern for some groups than others.
I just feel like you are painting with a very broad brush when it comes to "people."