Very interesting write up, would be curious to know more about what an Open Source Strategies course entails, as far as I can remember I never had anything like that on offer at my university.

> Most Students Don’t Want to Use Chatbots

I think this is changing rapidly.

I'm a university professor, and the amount of students who seem to be in need of LLM as a crutch is growing really exponentially.

We are still in a place where the oldest students did their first year completely without LLMs. But younger students have used LLMs throughout their studies, and I fear that in the future, we will see full generations of students completely incapable of working without LLM assistance.

Interesting write up! I’ve thought about how university exams are done effectively nowadays. I took my degree in CS almost 20 years ago, and being a user of LLMS - I can’t really see how any of my old exams would work today if students would be allowed LLMs.

> 3. I allow students to discuss among themselves [during an exam] if it is on topic.

Makes me wonder if they should also get a diploma together then, saying "may not have the tested knowledge if not accompanied by $other_student"

I know of some companies that support hiring people as a team (either all or none get hired and they're meant to then work together well), so it wouldn't necessarily be a problem if they wish to be a team like that

Quite a thoughtful way to adapt exams to wave of new tools for students and learn on the way.

I wished other universities adapt so quickly too (and have such a mindful attitude to students e.g. try to understand them, be upfront with expectations, learning from students etc).

Majority of professors are stressed and treat students as idiots... at least that was the case decade a go!

rare here: well written and insightful, I would take this course. I'm curious about why he penalized chatbot mistakes more, at first glance sounds like just discouraging their use but the hole setup indicates genuine desire to let it be a possibility. In my mind the rule should be "same penalty and extra super cookies for catching chatbot mistakes"

I wish we could take our exams this way. It seems like a very interesting approach :)

Only 2 students actually used an LLM in his exam, one well and one poorly so I'm not sure there is much you can draw from this experience.

In my experience LLMs can significantly speed up the process of solving exam questions. They can surface relevant material I don't know about, they can remember how other similar problems are solved a lot better than I can and they can check for any mistakes in my answer. Yes when you get into very niche areas they start to fail (and often in a misleading way) but if you run through practise papers at all you can tell this and either avoid using the LLM or do some fine tuning on past papers.

Something that I think many students, indeed many people, struggle with is the question "why should I know anything?"

For most of us--myself included--once you graduate from college, the answer is: "enough to not get fired". This is far less than most curriculums ask you to know, and every year, "enough to not get fired" is a lower and lower bar. With LLMs, it's practically on the floor for 90% of full-time jobs.

That is why I propose exactly the opposite regimen from this course, although I admire the writer's free thinking. Return to tradition, with a twist. Closed-book exams, no note sheets, all handwritten. Add a verbal examination, even though it massively increases examination time. No homework assignments, which encourage "completionist mindset", where the turning-in of the assignment feels more real than understanding the assignment. Publish problem sets thousands of problems large with worked-out-solutions to remove the incentive to cheat.

"Memorization is a prerequisite for creativity" -- paraphrase of an HN comment about a fondly remembered physics professor who made the students memorize every equation in the class. In the age of the LLM, I suspect this is triply true.

The problem is when students just blindly copy and paste from the chatbot and submit it as their own answer without even reading it.

They should be encouraged to read and review the LLM output so they can critically understand it and take ownership of it.

> The third chatbot-using student had a very complex setup where he would use one LLM, then ask another unrelated LLM for confirmation. He had walls of text that were barely readable. When glancing at his screen, I immediately spotted a mistake (a chatbot explaining that "Sepia Search is a compass for the whole Fediverse"). I asked if he understood the problem with that specific sentence. He did not. Then I asked him questions for which I had seen the solution printed in his LLM output. He could not answer even though he had the answer on his screen.

Is it possible, and this is an interesting one to me, that this is the smartest kid in the class? I think maybe.

That guy who is playing with the latest tech, and forcing it to do the job (badly), and could care less about university or the course he's on. There's a time and a place where that guy is the one you want working for you. Maybe he's not the number 1 student, but I think there should be some room for this to be the Chaotic Neutral pick.