Reddit conversation about using GPT-3 to write your homework. A teacher comments: "Grading something an AI wrote is an incredibly depressing waste of my life."
Reddit conversation about using GPT-3 to write your homework. A teacher comments: "Grading something an AI wrote is an incredibly depressing waste of my life."
:LIB:
:LIB: is thinking that making kids write a five paragraph essay that makes them want to blow their own brains out is educational. Writing becomes so much easier and more interesting when you don't have to follow that structure. And the whole "you need supporting evidence, citations, and a conclusion" thing is pretty :LIB: too because it implies that a bunch of western propaganda outlets are worthy sources, or that merely writing something a certain way (and doing the western/gatekeeping/elitist writing rituals, probably invented by a bunch of white supremacists) makes it more credible. Someone posting a link to some random article with a 240 character explanation is about as good as writing a properly structured paragraph with all the required parts.
Me writing the previous paragraph was more stimulating than writing some godawful essay on why Obama's drone strikes are sussy or whatever.
People can write more profound thoughts in meme-tweets than many professionals do in academic journals.
Sentence structure doesn't make someone good or correct. Communism does. And being able to make arguments comes from in-depth living knowledge of the subject matter, not just research and Googling.
The only difference between your point of view and Andrew tate's rant about how women can't drive is that communism is mentioned instead of masculinity. I don't even know where to start here. Sources are not a bad thing because you can't love through everything. I'll never know what it is like to be the victim of police profiling because I'm white. And unless someone shows that it happens, with evidence and numbers, how am I supposed to know it happens? I might not see it, and I wasn't born knowing cops are lying. It's with chains of evidence and sources I can read something and learn something outside my own experience. Past that, not everything is lived experience or living knowledge. I've never been an igneous rock, nor have I studied them in a lab. I know some things about them because I've read what experts have learned through study. If I need to write about that, I need to point to them, because it isn't my knowledge. Where Troy was is something we didn't know for a long time. Anyone could say it was anywhere, unless you go there yourself and find it, you need to point to the people that did as your evidence. Having a formal style allows anyone looking at your paper to find the exact source you are using and see for themselves if it is right or wrong, not just accept your word for it.
Children need to learn to write the same way at the start because they are stupid. They have no knowledge or experience to draw from. They need a specific set of rules to hit because they don't have a feel for what's good or bad in writing yet. There is a lot to critique about the educational system, but the simple five paragraph essay is a good starting point for grade schoolers. I've also had to read people's papers, lots have no idea what they are doing without a guideline. They write pointless pieces. It's easier for them, but worthless for the reader.
You're gonna need to give a concrete reason why whether or not the citation rules were created by white supremacists matters. The building code for my house was penned by a white supremacist, I'm sure happy it was used when the house was built. And it has been revised repeatedly, so is there a problem with the rules themselves that are racist or are you worried about wretched are touching you from it?
I don't care what you find stimulating, you have some ideas that you think make you smarter than every language professor to have ever existed, and think pedagogical theory should be rewritten to your whims because you didn't like writing essays in school. I've met thousands of people like you.
What do you mean by profound? Also, why does it matter? Not every paper is a treatise on the human soul, nor should they be. Most scientific papers should have nothing to say on the human experience. But if they don't have a solid argument and documentation they're less than worthless.
Communism doesn't make you good or correct. Stalin was a communist, and he embraced some very wrong ideas about agricultural genetics, and they became soviet policy. Communists can also be bad people. Communisms is a political belief based upon evidence, not a system of morality. I'm not a communist because it is most morally pure, I'm a communist because it is objectively correct to be one, based upon things I have read and researched and learned about.
Maybe the better thing to do than have people write a five paragraph essay is to let them fail at writing then correct them since the teacher is going to be reading and grading the papers anyways. I also didn't mean you shouldn't cite any sources, just that the emphasis on citing stuff doesn't really mean anything I guess. And there are documents cite a million things (look at any Wikipedia article) without backing up anything or making it easy to understand.
It's like being a software developer and writing comments to document your code, but you're only describing what it does instead of why it does it. I remember in school that I would cite something just so I had a source to back up the thing I already found in a dozen places and had absorbed. Citing stuff should be for creating a chain of reasoning and documenting/showing your work, not for proving a point with "facts and logic". But I don't know if that's a universal problem in school. But it feels like there's a lot of rituals and barriers to writing stuff that exist for the sake of it. Reminds me that they were also keen on people using a specific bibliography format even though every format is extremely complicated to properly fill out by hand and there are some bibliography formats who's specifications you have to pay for :capitalist-laugh: Why should kids have to deal with dumb stuff imported from academia. School should be teaching people how to use writing to do what they want, not how to be good office workers writing blabber for some corporate overlord or for writing some research paper on how to better kill kids in Somalia.
First off, if you just let first graders write whatever it would take the teacher way to long to sort out and explain what was wrong. You're describing a college class,or at least a somewhat advanced college class. There's no way to try and teach a classroom with everyone going in their own direction and no guidelines to adhere to.
You need to site even common knowledge because you think everyone knows because what everyone knows can be wrong. There's some exception depending on the specific paper and audience, you don't need to cite a source on what evolution is when you're writing to biologists because you know they know, but a claim about what Christians belief, which you may have learned growing up, needs to be cited because there are hundreds of interpretations, you can't know what the audience has going in and you may just reinforce stereotypes. Your point about facts and logic versus chains of evidence and thinking is absolute gibberish, I have no idea what you mean. Strongest guess based on the vibes around facts and logic is you just mean using sources instead of your own point. That's already built into writing a paper because if you just say what others say and never voice your own argument you probably did the assignment wrong.
Most citations and pretty easy to make, plus teachers and librarians will almost always help in my experience. I've never seen a citations style you need to pay for.
Learning to consider sources and what exactly someone is saying and why does more to fight capitalism than aid it. School classes that create office drones are the ones that fight critical thinking, this is one of the only techniques that actually makes some people think about what they are reading.
deleted by creator
I made my point in 2 paragraphs why do I need 4 pages
To actually prove your point, fully explain what you mean by it and what you don't, show an opposing point of view, and show why it is wrong or unimportant, and perhaps to discuss what other points have been made or why your point matters. hexbear take a writing course challenge.
I remember being given writing assignments in highschool where it was like "ok here's an encyclopedia it's your source material on this subject you need two full pages written" and it had all of two sentences of information in it.
I obviously didn't go to high school with you so I can't comment on that situation, but the fact you had a bad assignment doesn't invalidate the idea of the assignment.
I never got less than an 80% mark on my essays in my undergrad course, I can do it, but I would prefer not to
Tl;dr: 🤓
Ok, glad you can write and found it wasn't your passion
no