comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
So Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic."
] |
>
What? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say! | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word."
] |
>
meanwhile in Israel .. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!"
] |
>
Uh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel .."
] |
>
I'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well."
] |
>
To be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable."
] |
>
Everyone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation"
] |
>
The whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something."
] |
>
Who inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD."
] |
>
Russia. Called the start treaty. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?"
] |
>
Russia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty."
] |
>
The question should be, what has Russia not violated... | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections."
] |
>
This surprises No One | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated..."
] |
>
At point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One"
] |
>
Any treaty with Russia means fuck all. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence."
] |
>
After US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:
"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty."
This seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?
At least this is what I read in the article. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all."
] |
>
Surprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article."
] |
>
One more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker...
What does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work"
] |
>
Who's going to stop a nuclear armed country? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities."
] |
>
Ukraine, apparently. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?"
] |
>
Does the US even let anyone inspect their nukes? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently."
] |
>
It's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict "strategic" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.
The US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?"
] |
>
They're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd."
] |
>
You mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia."
] |
>
the infamous Los Alamos lab
You mean the famous Los Alamos lab? | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades."
] |
>
Want to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?"
] |
>
And what are they gonna do about it, weak ass world leaders | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?",
">\n\nWant to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak."
] |
>
When they finally allow inspections it’ll just be a grizzly bear yeeting RPG rockets. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?",
">\n\nWant to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak.",
">\n\nAnd what are they gonna do about it, weak ass world leaders"
] |
>
Putin doesn’t want his nuclear fraud exposed as well. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?",
">\n\nWant to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak.",
">\n\nAnd what are they gonna do about it, weak ass world leaders",
">\n\nWhen they finally allow inspections it’ll just be a grizzly bear yeeting RPG rockets."
] |
>
Which reaffirms the de facto cold war we've been in since they annexed Crimea. This treaty was the very last one remaining from the peace time after the Soviet Union fell. It's just mutually assured destruction and the judgment of the chain of command now keeping cooler heads prevailing. | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?",
">\n\nWant to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak.",
">\n\nAnd what are they gonna do about it, weak ass world leaders",
">\n\nWhen they finally allow inspections it’ll just be a grizzly bear yeeting RPG rockets.",
">\n\nPutin doesn’t want his nuclear fraud exposed as well."
] |
> | [
"I wonder what prior inspections revealed.",
">\n\nSorry I'm lazy. Got a tldr?",
">\n\nThe paper provides an overview of Russia’s nuclear forces. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces have about 310 ICBMs with 800 warheads deployed, 176 SLBMs with 624 warheads deployed, and <70 bombers that can carry >1000 warheads combined. They also have 1,912 nonstrategic nuclear warheads for reasons as yet unclear.\nEdit: The report also contains a brief history of US and Soviet/Russian nuclear buildup, treaties between the nations, Soviet and Russian nuclear doctrine, and an overview of their advanced weapon concepts.",
">\n\nOut of curiously, does anyone know how inspectors know if 1 of the participating countries that is being inspected is not hiding an extra stash of nukes? How are we supposed to believe if Russia ain’t hiding an extra 5k nukes?",
">\n\nThey dont but the point of nukes is to let other people know you have them so there’s not much reason to hide them",
">\n\nUnless you’re selling them.",
">\n\noh I don't like this answer",
">\n\nThis world in which we live is full of immense beauty and absolute horror.",
">\n\nThe Power of power",
">\n\n\"We don't inspect 'em, why would we let you?\"",
">\n\nMaybe they don't want the world knowing their nukes don't really work any more.",
">\n\nAfter their military was exposed to be as weak as it is, I figured their nukes had the same problem. If they lose their nukes, they have no negotiating power at all. NATO can threaten full scale invasion with 100% certainty Putin will die in a matter of days if they don't make a full withdrawal from Ukraine.",
">\n\nI'm convinced most of Russians nukes don't work. \nBut if they can make 10 of them work Russia is still a nuclear armed power. \nThat's the thing, they only need one to work, we would need them all to fail",
">\n\nDon't underestimate your enemy. Also this discussion is fruitless because the west will always operate under the assumption that Russia can reign down thousands of warheads. Probably even if they know it isn't true.\nAlso Russia does spend a significant portion of their military budget on ICBM maintenance. It's a measly amount of money but you have to consider purchasing power blah blah. They have nuclear subs nuff said.",
">\n\nI'm not an expert but I've heard nukes require routine maintenance and the replacement of exotic gasses and materials.\nWhen the Soviet Union collapsed all maintenance was stopped and probably ruined most of russias nukes.",
">\n\nI am not an expert at all either. But as I understand it the hard part of nukes is getting material to make them. It's sanctions (and covert/overt actions) that make it a real PITA for countries like Iran and DPRK to make nukes. The US/West can strictly control export/import of things so specific like aluminum tubes of specific diameter, things we take for granted that require really specific/mature industry to manufacture.\nBut it really doesn't matter because Russia could do other heinous shit like use chemical weapons, or use their nukes as dirty bombs, things the US nuclear umbrella are technically supposed to cover.\nAnywho I am bloviating like a big butthole on the internet.",
">\n\nRussia has functioning pressurized water reactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.",
">\n\n\nreactors which are of a design that produce fissile material as a byproduct.\n\nNot like that had anything to do with the prevalence of US PWRs, either! /s\nYour point stands though. I've done academic research in the nuclear industry, and there's plenty of literature out there from Russia, they're definitely capable and also have Kazakhstan right next door.",
">\n\nAnd the consequences are what exactly?",
">\n\nThis treaty helps both sides ensure that the other is keeping their nuclear weapons at an agreed level of disarmament. for example, the treaty limits how many warheads can be on a missile. The implication is that if Russia wants to suspend the treaty, the US can just throw all the warheads that can fit onto their missiles.\nSo in short, the consequences are that the US and Russia are going to both be quietly pointing more guns at each other.",
">\n\nAlso stuff like this:\n\nNuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which allows member countries without nuclear weapons ... to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program\n\nInitial deliveries of the F35 next year IRC.",
">\n\nMeanwhile it’s a public secret in the Netherlands about a air base of which almost everyone is pretty sure a warhead is located. (I believe they even made a documentary on it)",
">\n\nThe article I linked to above has a picture of a US nuclear weapon storage system at Volkel Air Base which can be delivered by Dutch F16s in the event of a nuclear war.\nNot exactly that big of a secret.",
">\n\nIt's technically classified information. But everyone knows.",
">\n\nThe better safe than sorry system. Classify everything that even might be sensitive, even if it's already in the public domain.",
">\n\nAnd this is how you wind up with people accidentally breaking classified info laws.",
">\n\nAnd stuff classified after people have already forgotten it existed in the first place.",
">\n\nExactly just like [REDACTED]",
">\n\nIt’s cuz Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, and the Russian warhead maintenance budget paid for yachts in Monaco. The US spends like 42 billion per year on nuclear arsenal maintenance. \nIf most of your nukes didn’t work, would you tell anyone?",
">\n\nlast time they were inspected it was revealed that nearly half of their warheads were non operational and that roughly another quarter were non deliverable conventional nukes (not in warheads... need to be hand delivered to their target or dropped out of planes) \nthe last thing they want when invading Europe is for the rest of the world to know their situation has deteriorated since then (probably even more broken ones than before)",
">\n\nWeren't there reports that Russia was firing missiles at Ukraine that could hold a nuclear warhead but they were empty? If the USA inspected Russia's arsenal and all of a sudden there's a lot less \"nuclear\" missiles that would raise some red flags. Would be incredibly stupid of Russia if they used most of their nuclear delivery systems on Ukraine's civilians. \nI tried finding a source but I can't find one now.",
">\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\nso yes technically they were nuclear capable warheads, but not live",
">\n\n\nalmost all conventional missiles can be fitted with a small yield detonation core (warhead)\n\nYes, but not all nuclear warheads are miniaturized enough to fit. That's a special extra level of tech.",
">\n\nHey remember the treaty where Ukraine would give up it’s nuclear weapons and in exchange Russia would respect their independence and leave them alone? I do.",
">\n\nIf I remember correctly, the nukes were useless anyway because the launch codes for them were in Moscow due to how the soviets structured command. Ukraine couldn't have used them.",
">\n\nThe whole unit was worthless. The parts were. Very valuable. Pull the pit out of one and you got yourself a dirty bomb. Without the code, it won’t make the organized implosion needed to initiate fusion, but it will blow plutonium everywhere.",
">\n\nlol. Its russia. They are not honorable, and in fact they're a deceitful, untrustworthy country. Of course they won't honor agreements whilst engaged in an illegal war. \nThe sooner that country implodes and fucks off, the better.",
">\n\nInspections would reveal they are inoperable",
">\n\nThe war in Ukraine has revealed Russia is basically too corrupt to function effectively as a fighting nation anymore.\nIt would stand to reason that the same gangrenous rot has managed to spoil their nuclear arsenal too.",
">\n\nI once saw a cost breakdown that said they spend something like 1000 times less on maintaining their nuclear arsenal than Great Britain. Great Britain doesn’t have that many nukes.",
">\n\nI don't know about the 1,000 times less thing, but I can say the UK and Russia have similar military budgets, and the UK has a lot fewer nukes. The same also applies to France and India. \nMeanwhile the US spends more on maintaining its nukes then Russia spends on its entire military",
">\n\nUK cheats as well, since it's technically pulling it's missiles from a shared pool with the USN. It means the UK's deterrent isn't fully independent but it's also gonna reduce the costs since its the US that actually maintains them (economies of scale from a larger pool as well).",
">\n\nThe UK has their own nuclear deterrent in the form of 4 vanguard-class nuclear armed submarines known as trident.\nAlso the UK maintains 200 nuclear warheads that are completely British made and totally independent of any other country. That number is actually set to increase to 260 for the first time in a while, since for many years public opinion has been pushing toward reducing the amount of nuclear weapons the UK has to just what is needed to maintain a deterrence, but since brexit there has been a push for a larger nuclear presence and to always have a nuclear armed sub at sea.",
">\n\nThe UK's Vanguard Class subs use the Trident II missile, the same missile used the US's Ohio Class submarines. The RN Vanguard's draw their Trident II missiles from a shared pool with the USN's Atlantic squadron of Ohio's. We're independent on our warhead's but it's the US which actually maintains the delivery system.",
">\n\nAhh, I thought you were talking about the warheads, sure that's the case right now but if the UK felt the need to have a fully British made delivery system it wouldn't take long to do. This is just the most efficient way right now.",
">\n\nHonestly though, where does Britain end and the US begin, in terms of the military? We're about as close as two nations can get without the neighbors talking.",
">\n\nLotta people here making light of the implications of Russia breaking international treaty by saying \"what did you expect?\"\nOf course everyone expected them to break it. It's the political fallout of breaking yet another treaty that is important not the fact Russia has broken another one. \nHonestly sometimes these things have to be spelt out to some people.",
">\n\nThe problem is, treaties Russia has broken in the past have been fairly moderate ones.\nThis treaty is the one that prevents us both from building nuclear weapons until we have so many nuclear weapons that we just don't know what to do with them anymore.\nPrepare for a return to that norm.",
">\n\nThe tough one will be when we decide to return to full scale nuclear testing (if Russia breaks that too). The last one they did was in 1990. The US in 1992. Or even atmospheric testing which was last done in the 1960s. \nFwiw at least we will get new data sets from the testing.",
">\n\nI really doubt the United States is going to start doing nuclear tests. \nNo treaty could convince Americans to be approving of that, and the fast majority of the tests we need to do have been done, and we have much better computers so you generally need to do less real world tests.\nBut I guess you never know.",
">\n\nA significant amount of American voters can be convinced of almost anything.",
">\n\nQ, is that you?",
">\n\nHow did you know, Picard?",
">\n\n“We promise you that all 3,256 warheads are perfectly safe and protected. All 2,432 of them are monitored around the clock and accounted for. There is no way we would let our entire arsenal of 1,621 nuclear warheads go missing under dubious circumstances or fall into catastrophic disrepair.”",
">\n\nYeah that seems like the first step for slipping a few nukes to Iran...",
">\n\nI mean, isn't violating this sort of treaty the logical thing to do for Russia at this stage? They are already sanctioned across the board, they know the US is more risk averse than they are, so doubling down on their nuclear threat is one of the few remaining cards they have.\nIt's not good for anyone else in the world, but it is logical in at least that sense.",
">\n\nConsequences?? Let me guess… sanctions. \nOf course they blocked inspections..",
">\n\nOf course. They're the kings of cognitive dissonance and dishonesty and gaslighting. Fuck Putin and his terroristic simps.",
">\n\nRemember when the last president pulled us out of the clear skies treaty, never gave a reason and all his followers claimed it was a bigly idea?",
">\n\n\nnever gave a reason \n\nWikipedia cites a few reasons, links to a WSJ article. (paywall)\n\nIn December 2018, the U.S. carried out an Open Skies flight over eastern Ukraine soon after Russia attacked Ukrainian ships in Black Sea. The flight, which was requested by Ukraine, carried Ukrainian, British, Romanian, German, French and Canadian observers, according to the Pentagon, which said it was intended to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s security.",
">\n\nWho gives a shit, they have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. If they or we decide to use them we are fucked. It doesn’t matter if they make more of them, it doesn’t matter because already what’s made is too much.",
">\n\nSo what are the implications of this? Sounds like war is escalating, dialog is shutting down and nuclear is on the table. \nShould I get the hell out of Europe if Russia lose Crimea?",
">\n\nIf nuclear war breaks out, the lucky ones will die in the blasts.",
">\n\nSo true. Although trying to live in a post apocalyptic world for a few months/years before I die of radiation sickness sounds like an interesting experience",
">\n\nI would recommend reading the book, \"The Road\". Its reads like something a middle schooler could understand... but it really sets the scene when it comes to how fucked up shit could get.\nEdit: Also the film, \"The Divide\"... thats kinda where I stole the whole \"lucky ones died in the blast\" from.",
">\n\nThe Road is also written by one of America’s greatest writers, who happens to still be alive. \nIt is highly readable, and stark.",
">\n\nOoooooh. And what are we going to do about it? Send them a harshly worded email?",
">\n\nRussia is behaving like the “drug addict in denial” of the family of nations right now. Saying ridiculous, alarming things just to provoke an argument.",
">\n\nGreat, grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over my head so it looks like I may die with it hanging over my head. Oh well, it's been an enjoyable 30 some years without it.",
">\n\nQuick question here, but does Russia get to inspect American nukes?",
">\n\nYea, that is how the treaty works",
">\n\nSo refusing inspection is a violation but threatening to use it is not?",
">\n\nMost of their weapons are expired, most of their delivery systems are vulnerable or hardly work, the threats haven’t had the usual effect…so their last card is to obscure their inventory and hope that the lack of information scares us.\nThis tactic, however, relies heavily on fear that the aforementioned problems aren’t accurate.\nThe US still plays the “talk softly, carry a big stick” strategy…but it may be time to talk louder so the Russians are constantly reminded how fucked they are.",
">\n\nInspections were going on both ways till last year. Why do you think their weapons expired in the last year.",
">\n\nThey don't have access to any data so it's pretty safe to just disregard any opinion that says stuff like \"they aren't working anymore, they are expired\" etc etc. It's pretty much talking out of their asses.",
">\n\nNo one has access to viability data, however, Russia would be spending many more billions per year on their arsenal if they actually had the number of functional weapons they claim. Because the treaties only allow nations to count warheads, without testing their function, means that expired warheads would be counted the same as active warheads.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but there's always the possibility (albeit VERY small possibility) that the russians somehow figured out how to maintain nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost it takes the west to. We have to account for all possible scenarios when it comes to nukes and that's one of them.",
">\n\nRussia will naturally have cheaper maintainance due to the lower wages than the west. So you can never do a 1:1 budget comparison.",
">\n\nPeople don't seem to understand this. And it is not just labor. Parts too.",
">\n\nwhile true\nthere's a HUGE difference between russians and even the UK's\nWho has a fraction of the nukes that russia has",
">\n\nAs a sidenote, this is why I hate 'he said she said' journalism.\nThe US says Russia violated the treaty, Russia of course says they have not, and it's the job of the journalist to determine who is telling the truth.\nAs much as I highly doubt Russia is the truthful one here it's the job of the newspaper to investigate and actually pick a side.",
">\n\nJournalists should uncover all leads and disclose everything. Choosing sides is what they absolutely should NOT do. We have 24hr news organizations that prove this only causes sensationalism and chaos.",
">\n\nBruh. They already violated nuclear treaties when they invaded Ukraine. I dont think they care about these things. \n(Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in the 90s in exchange for russia promising to not attack Ukraine)",
">\n\nYou mean the same country that signed a treaty agreement with Ukraine where Ukraine gave up their nuclear arms if Russia promised not to invade?! No way!!\nNothing will happen anyway. \nThe corporations that were supposed to leave Russia still haven't left.",
">\n\nthing is, whether he will actually do it or not, threatening nuclear war is the only stick putin still has to shake.. so far all of his threats have been really empty and his army has been proven completely ineffective and disorganized at best..\nif he allows an inspection rn and it’s anything like the results of the last one, he may lose his one and only playing card. at that point, it just becomes a war of attrition - waiting for either putin’s health to take him out, or hopefully some enrgaged russian citizens.",
">\n\nLast inspection was done in 2020 just before the pandemic.",
">\n\nSo Russia violates another agreement. What does that matter? No one is attempting to stop them from anything. They are raping and murdering their way around eastern Ukraine. There are entire towns completely raised to the ground. This is the literal definition of genocide. No one will even use that word.",
">\n\nWhat? Russia isn’t playing by the rules? Well that very unbecoming of them! Shame on them I say!",
">\n\nmeanwhile in Israel ..",
">\n\nUh oh. I’ve seen this headline before. I think it was 2002/2003. It didn’t end well.",
">\n\nI'd guess this is a bluff to make their threat of using nukes more believable.",
">\n\nTo be fair the whole space force thing was a treaty violation",
">\n\nEveryone will call them out, but nobody gives enough of a shit to actually do something.",
">\n\nThe whole point of nuclear inspection is to limit maintenance costs. ICBMs are expensive to maintain. The START agreement was all about that. If you can show that you have working ICBMs at a certain amount, there is no need for more. You already have MAD.",
">\n\nWho inspects US nuclear? is it in house inspection or someone else?",
">\n\nRussia. Called the start treaty.",
">\n\nRussia also says US has violated nuclear arms treaty by blocking inspections.",
">\n\nThe question should be, what has Russia not violated...",
">\n\nThis surprises No One",
">\n\nAt point in the future, I will be surprised by any positive news and Russia being in the same sentence.",
">\n\nAny treaty with Russia means fuck all.",
">\n\nAfter US blocked Russian inspectors to travel in the US, sanctioned because of the war in Ukraine:\n\"Moscow in August suspended cooperation with inspections under the treaty, blaming travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies after Russian forces invaded neighbor Ukraine in February last year, but said it was still committed to complying with the provisions of the treaty.\"\nThis seems highly hypocritical from the US. Why do they expect to be able to conduct inspections in Russia when they don't allow Russian inspections in the US?\nAt least this is what I read in the article.",
">\n\nSurprised this is all the way down at the bottom while the armchair nuclear weapons experts above argue about how Russia is either increasing their nuclear weapons or none of them work",
">\n\nOne more agreement that Russia broke? What a shocker... \nWhat does disappoint me is that so many countries and international organizations - that consider themselves to be better than Russia - allow for Russia's government (and other terroristic/autocratic countries) to commit such inhumane atrocities.",
">\n\nWho's going to stop a nuclear armed country?",
">\n\nUkraine, apparently.",
">\n\nDoes the US even let anyone inspect their nukes?",
">\n\nIt's interesting that Russia's line is that the USA is trying to inflict \"strategic\" defeat in Ukraine. It's an odd qualifier to a thing which doesn't need qualifying.\nThe US and allies are try to achieve the defeat of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Plain defeat, original flavour defeat, defeat classic. They aren't interested in what variety of defeat, so for even Russia's rhetorical lines to get into the weeds of what sort of defeat is just odd.",
">\n\nThey're trying to put out the message that the US isn't supporting Ukraine because they're right we're supporting Ukraine only because it hurts Russia.",
">\n\nYou mean the new START treaty we’ve been violating for years by spinning up new Nuclear warhead core facilities in multiple places across the country (including the infamous Los Alamos lab)? Yeah… I don’t think either party has taken that seriously in decades.",
">\n\n\nthe infamous Los Alamos lab\n\nYou mean the famous Los Alamos lab?",
">\n\nWant to bet they're no longer functional and Russia would really rather people didn't find out so they can keep threatening us with a unloaded 'gun' so to speak.",
">\n\nAnd what are they gonna do about it, weak ass world leaders",
">\n\nWhen they finally allow inspections it’ll just be a grizzly bear yeeting RPG rockets.",
">\n\nPutin doesn’t want his nuclear fraud exposed as well.",
">\n\nWhich reaffirms the de facto cold war we've been in since they annexed Crimea. This treaty was the very last one remaining from the peace time after the Soviet Union fell. It's just mutually assured destruction and the judgment of the chain of command now keeping cooler heads prevailing."
] |
When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ? | [] |
>
proof the religion makes you fucking stupid. | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?"
] |
>
Really? Ban internet next in case someone can find something inconvenient there too? Is the goal ending like Afghanistan? | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?",
">\n\nproof the religion makes you fucking stupid."
] |
>
Well, they called Taliban takeover a freeing of slaves. Draw your own conclusion about their goals... | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?",
">\n\nproof the religion makes you fucking stupid.",
">\n\nReally? Ban internet next in case someone can find something inconvenient there too? Is the goal ending like Afghanistan?"
] |
>
Shitty religious authoritarians and banning access to books and knowledge.
It's the fricking dynamic duo of dumbassery... creating a generational chain of dumbassery propagating itself. | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?",
">\n\nproof the religion makes you fucking stupid.",
">\n\nReally? Ban internet next in case someone can find something inconvenient there too? Is the goal ending like Afghanistan?",
">\n\nWell, they called Taliban takeover a freeing of slaves. Draw your own conclusion about their goals..."
] |
>
Lmao, and they wonder why nobody will send them money to bail out their failing country | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?",
">\n\nproof the religion makes you fucking stupid.",
">\n\nReally? Ban internet next in case someone can find something inconvenient there too? Is the goal ending like Afghanistan?",
">\n\nWell, they called Taliban takeover a freeing of slaves. Draw your own conclusion about their goals...",
">\n\nShitty religious authoritarians and banning access to books and knowledge.\nIt's the fricking dynamic duo of dumbassery... creating a generational chain of dumbassery propagating itself."
] |
> | [
"When will people just fuck off with their stupid religious bollocks ?",
">\n\nproof the religion makes you fucking stupid.",
">\n\nReally? Ban internet next in case someone can find something inconvenient there too? Is the goal ending like Afghanistan?",
">\n\nWell, they called Taliban takeover a freeing of slaves. Draw your own conclusion about their goals...",
">\n\nShitty religious authoritarians and banning access to books and knowledge.\nIt's the fricking dynamic duo of dumbassery... creating a generational chain of dumbassery propagating itself.",
">\n\nLmao, and they wonder why nobody will send them money to bail out their failing country"
] |
/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
A more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.
The vast majority of "homework" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.
Fundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
A more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.
How is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future."
] |
>
I took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?"
] |
>
the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation
What happens to students with poor social skills? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material."
] |
>
They have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?
If you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?"
] |
>
so they get punished if they don’t? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue."
] |
>
You mean a grade? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?"
] |
>
if communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?"
] |
>
If math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication"
] |
>
you can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho
they’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me) | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback."
] |
>
Who would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?
Would not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)"
] |
>
I will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.
I assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.
Regarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school.
These labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning."
] |
>
I will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.
That's not how CMV works. The response of "all homework is dumb" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use."
] |
>
Exams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.
Perhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.
A teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.
This would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.
Your plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them."
] |
>
If that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students."
] |
>
Generally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?"
] |
>
That's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions."
] |
>
With guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up."
] |
>
The creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible "watermarks" in the writing.
And you may think "Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort." But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.
It's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.
So in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions."
] |
>
How are watermarks ever going to work in text?
I think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.
Images and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.
I worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.
If the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive."
] |
>
As I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.
If the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.
When the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives."
] |
>
The students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.
From the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI."
] |
>
At the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.
There are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort."
] |
>
There absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.
If the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.
Currently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.
Also it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking."
] |
>
ChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development.
Surely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.
So focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.
While this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech."
] |
>
I could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.
For example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks."
] |
>
I mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.
I just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.
It also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)
And if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas."
] |
>
Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.
All higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless.
In all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you."
] |
>
And are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?
All higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer
But the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes."
] |
>
I totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use"
] |
>
Chatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry."
] |
>
Two things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense.
And two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school."
] |
>
Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.
This is also why the "YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.
Yesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.
This was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the "calculator" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away."
] |
>
I used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything.
Eventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy."
] |
>
Yeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are."
] |
>
don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea
Your phone has a world map as a built-in app. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything."
] |
>
But the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless.
People here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing). | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app."
] |
>
I don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying "oh, it's north of South Korea." In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing)."
] |
>
I don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about.
I think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it."
] |
>
This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.
Think of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.
ChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.
ChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.
Human brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.
ChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly."
] |
>
ChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work
It's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software.
It's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of "how long does the editor have to spend to fix it").
It's not going to "fully replace people" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.
Basically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world."
] |
>
it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.
Maybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand.
Sure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans."
] |
>
Sure, I totally agree.
Today we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances.
ChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two.
Of course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing.
But educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems."
] |
>
Today we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances.
Why? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it.
ChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two.
Why? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do?
Let's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project.
But educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.
Totally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead."
] |
>
For the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.
Chat GPT isn't going to "replace" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly).
Same for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones.
So now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc.
Or take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free.
But the graph of machine translation "efficiency" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors.
And if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator."
] |
>
There is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree.
The first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by "watermark" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet.
Another is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those."
] |
>
What about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications."
] |
>
I've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):
It tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.
It makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.
This suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.
A similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations). | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them."
] |
>
There are three criticisms that I have of this approach.
Should we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool.
Can chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient.
An assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations)."
] |
>
homework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds.
Congratulations, you've invented the "cram school".
I'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, "Make the school day 30% longer".
My solution to the "problem" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework "boiler rooms" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.
It would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... "test" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call "classes", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.
This method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education."
] |
>
What about pen and ink? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day."
] |
>
arguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?"
] |
>
It's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.
When calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution."
] |
>
Well I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.
It forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?"
] |
>
So you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?
Also, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did."
] |
>
No. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.
However, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students."
] |
>
You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator
But why?
You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google
Again, why?
Where do you get your "should" from?
I have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?
Do you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.",
">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter."
] |
>
The less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.
Depending too much on outside forces will make you helpless. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.",
">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.",
">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?"
] |
>
Is wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.
Depending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.
The weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder. | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.",
">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.",
">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?",
">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless."
] |
>
And if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?
I didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison) | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.",
">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.",
">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?",
">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.",
">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder."
] |
>
Couldn't chatgpt (or somesuch AI) be asked "Hey - did you write this?" and nip this sort of thing in the bud? | [
"/u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\nThe vast majority of \"homework\" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.\nFundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future.",
">\n\n\nA more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.\n\nHow is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments?",
">\n\nI took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.",
">\n\n\nthe exam was a 1 on 1 conversation\n\nWhat happens to students with poor social skills?",
">\n\nThey have to build some? What would happen to students who have poor writing skills in a class with essays or research papers?\nIf you're 19 years old and can't talk to another adult 1 on 1 for 30 minutes then you probably aren't ready for college and should take a gap year to straighten that out. If you have a legitimate medial reason fro not being able to do so, then you already have the right to accommodation so it's not really an issue.",
">\n\nso they get punished if they don’t?",
">\n\nYou mean a grade?",
">\n\nif communication is necessary in an enviornment and people struggle severely with effective communication, should they be graded poorly because of their struggles with communication",
">\n\nIf math is necessary in an environment and people struggle severely with math should they receive a bad grade? How about writing? Grades are signals about you mastery of skills and subject matters, feedback.",
">\n\nyou can help someone else with writing and math, it’s hard to help someone develop social skills tho\nthey’re teachable things but social skills arent (or if they are, please teach me)",
">\n\nWho would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?\nWould not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning.",
">\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\nI assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.\nRegarding who would supervise this. Again that would have to be a school official. Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school. \nThese labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7. But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use.",
">\n\n\nI will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.\n\nThat's not how CMV works. The response of \"all homework is dumb\" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them.",
">\n\nExams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.\nPerhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.\nA teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.\nThis would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.\nYour plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students.",
">\n\nIf that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me?",
">\n\nGenerally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions.",
">\n\nThat's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up.",
">\n\nWith guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions.",
">\n\nThe creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible \"watermarks\" in the writing.\nAnd you may think \"Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort.\" But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.\nIt's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.\nSo in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.",
">\n\nHow are watermarks ever going to work in text?\nI think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.\nImages and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.\nI worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.",
">\n\nAs I understand it, the watermarking isn't going to be done on a file or an image, but a pattern within the text itself which serves as an invisible tell.\n\n\nIf the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.\n\nWhen the main issues are detecting lack of student effort, there's a pretty low benchmark where it's easier just to write the paper than to research how to defeat the watermarking. Will some students do it anyway? Sure, just like some students work hard to cheat the current system without AI.",
">\n\nThe students don't do this work, the people who make AI software for the cheaters do this.\nFrom the point of view of the cheater, it will still be low effort.",
">\n\nAt the moment, generative AI is incredibly expensive and resource heavy to create. There isn't the incentive to develop such a project just to help students cheat. I expect at some point there will be more accessible ways to enter and piggyback of others work, but that's not what the playing field looks like now.\nThere are some unsavory third party AI software at this point, but it's mostly just using the existing large project software. A third party using GPT won't be able to crack GPT's watermarking.",
">\n\nThere absolutely are incentives to develop versions of LLMs that cannot be detected. You may be correct that the incentive isn't for allowing students to cheat, but I suspect generating misinformation is worth more than enough to warrant it.\nIf the watermarking is not part of the digital asset in some way, but a feature of the structure of the text, detectors are always going to struggle, even if people use GPT directly through its API. There will even be real content by real people that will be flagged as AI generated.\nCurrently you can look at Hive AI's attempt at detection of ChatGPT generated content for an illustration into how difficult this problem is going to be.\nAlso it's extremely early days. StableDiffusion is already out in the wild as an image GAN, it's a matter of time before LLMs are out there outside of big tech.",
">\n\nChatGPT exists, that bell can't be unrung. Personally I think the best education is one that prepares children for the conditions they are likely to work in, it's unhelpful to make computer scientists work without internet when every real computer science project ever will heavily rely on the internet advice and support for development. \nSurely given that the children being educated today will have machine learning language tools at their disposal, we should be changing our questions and marking to reflect that rather than contriving the test environment.\nSo focus on what ChatGPT doesn't provide well, ask questions about much more niche aspects of books/topics being studied, put more focus in the marking on writing style rather than structure, and novel insights rather than broad comprehension.\nWhile this change in technology is a big one, it's not too dissimilar from the introduction of spelling and grammar checkers, these days is expected that everyone will have near perfect spelling with these tools, so achieving this only gives the minimum marks.",
">\n\nI could make an argument that using spelling and grammar checks is a crutch. The fundamentals of spelling, punctuation and grammar are lost without being routinely reinforced. It almost becomes mechanical as your brain is programmed to never write correctly.\nFor example the word I routinely misspell is “comunications”. I just did it again. It’s part of my programming as I rapidly type. I write technical books to this day and still spell it wrong because my brain is just wired like that now. I think that is happening all over with spelling checkers today and ChatGPT amps up that effect in other areas.",
">\n\nI mean, you haven't made any spelling or grammar mistakes in that reply other than those you have consciously chosen to leave in, so the system of spell checkers is clearly working fine for you.\nI just don't think there is much point to pretending these tools don't exist, it makes the entire education process a waste of time. Imagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\nIt also doesn't tell you anything useful, sure the person who has memorized a complete slide ruler can do logarithms in his head in an exam, but if you give that person and another person calculators they will both be equally as able to solve x = log(32)\nAnd if you want to make sure people are capable of decent spelling and grammar, you can do that with in person handwritten exams, you don't need every assessment to test for every aspect of a field nor should you.",
">\n\n\nImagine if we applied this standard to mathematics, forbid anyone from using calculators in all exams, have everyone spend loads of time memorising sine and cosine graphs so they could do trigonometry. What would be the point? The moment the exam is over they will pick up the relevant tools and never use the knowledge again.\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer, but all of the courses I took required that you learn the process nonetheless. \nIn all of my college level math courses I was required to take every test without a calculator and remember all of the trig tables, but we were allowed a single side of a page of notes.",
">\n\nAnd are you any more efficient than someone who hasn't memorised the? armed with a calculator?\n\nAll higher mathematics from trig to linear algebra/differential equations can be done with ease using modern software tools and having no/little idea the process to getting to the answer\n\nBut the important knowledge is not photographic memory of the trig tables, it's when to use trig and the correct equations to use",
">\n\nI totally agree with that. Arm us to use the tools, don't make us jump through effectively useless hoops. But that's how it is. It's mostly a filter, not much of a prep for industry.",
">\n\nChatgpt points out the failure of current teaching. The majority of assignments are just mindless filler that does little to challenge and promote critical thinking. If current ai can easily complete an assignment, it probably wasn't the kind of assignment that would properly prepare students for life after school.",
">\n\nTwo things; one, I think you drastically underestimate the power of chatgpt. I asked It to write a 500 word, essay comparing and contrasting the benefits of capitalism versus socialism, taking the side of Socialism in the end, and citing relevant sources, on a high school reading level. It wrote a damn good essay. It’s not simply filler or definitions, the AI is capable of articulating unique opinions, in a sense. \nAnd two, while critical thinking is the highest level of learning, it is not the only important level of learning. Memorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary. you can’t analyze if you can’t compare and contrast. You can’t compare and contrast if you can’t clearly define what you are talking about. It’s like being mad at music teachers for having students play scales and not having them only bang out Vivaldi right away.",
">\n\n\nMemorization and internalizing some skills and knowledge is necessary.\n\nThis is also why the \"YoU WoN't HaVe A CaLcUlAtOr WiTh YoU EvErYdAy\" argument falls flat. Sure, we have calculators, but you also need to use them correctly for them to be effective.\nYesterday I was doing some tax work and I noticed that there was a mistake as two numbers that should add up to a third number didn't. I didn't calculate the actual answer, but I could see that they were a few thousand short by doing rough calculations.\nThis was because I made a mistake which caused January to be excluded somewhere, so the answer the \"calculator\" (google sheets) gave was wrong and I only spotted that because my mental math was good enough to spot the discrepancy.",
">\n\nI used to teach middle school, history, and it was about the time when they started really hard-core pushing critical thinking into every single lesson. I was at a disadvantaged school, and more than half of my students didn’t get to take geography in their sixth grade year, because the teacher quit a few weeks in. I got written up multiple times for trying to teach basic geography terms to kids Because it wasn’t critical thinking on a 7th grade level. You can’t discuss tribalism as a concept without first understanding what a tribe even is. It was like that with everything. \nEventually, kids get to vote. And if they never actually understand what the terms being discussed mean, then we have mindless husks that think socialism means communism and capitalism means oligarchy. There’s elements of each within, but you can’t have an honest conversation if you don’t agree on what the terms are.",
">\n\nYeah exactly. Sure, you can look stuff up, but if you watch the news and you don't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea are, you're gonna have a very hard time keeping up as there just isn't enough time to look up everything.",
">\n\n\ndon't roughly know where Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea\n\nYour phone has a world map as a built-in app.",
">\n\nBut the world map doesn’t contextualize conflicts, borders, or relations. This is why internalizing historical events, dates, and figures is important. Debate bereft of background context is meaningless. \nPeople here are talking about effectively the end of learning and they have no idea (not saying that’s what you’re doing).",
">\n\nI don't quite think they were advocating for the end of education. If someone asks me 'where's North Korea?', I can show them on a map instead of just saying \"oh, it's north of South Korea.\" In that instance, they didn't ask about borders or history - just location. If they want more, that information is out there and is easily accessible, so long as you know how to access it.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree, In the context of a conversation or someone simply asking a question. But part of the purpose of K-12 is to educate people on basic life skills and introduce things that they didn’t know about before or didn’t know they might like to know about. \nI think that by getting rid of homework, repetitive work, and memorization work, we are going to see a lot more of the dunning Kruger effect on society. Fact-based questions have definitive, right and wrong answers. Critical thinking is entirely about abstract and creative thinking, and if you are taught to think critically about things, you don’t know anything about, you might make the mistake of thinking you are well-versed in it. You can’t be wrong if all you say is opinions. And even googling things has its limitations, as the resource is only as capable as the person using it. I have employees of mine that ask me questions I tell them they should’ve googled, and sometimes they respond with “I don’t know how to Google that.” They don’t have the basic knowledge to even articulate the question correctly.",
">\n\nThis is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. As you said, ChatGPT is likely to become an essential tool in a number of fields. We need to be teaching our kids how to use it to their advantage, not locking them out of it.\nThink of when the personal computer came out, and suddenly kids were writing essays faster because they could type instead of handwrite and search vast amounts of information quickly. The solution was not to ban the use of computers, but to adjust the expectations of the education system to take them into account.\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work, but you can bet your ass it’ll be drastically changing and optimizing the way humans perform those jobs as a tool well before then.\nChatGPT can only do menial tasks at the moment. The problem, fundamentally, is that most school homework/tests/essays are just busy work to ensure that the student read the required thing and was able to regurgitate relevant points — that’s the kind of thing ChatGPT excels at.\nHuman brains still by far have the upper-hand in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving, which, coincidentally, are what educational researchers have been begging schools to pivot to for decades now.\nChatGPT is a tool, just like computers and the internet. It works best as a way to offload menial, basic tasks, and have the human focus on the bigger picture. Banning 2023’s children from using ChatGPT would be like banning the internet in school in 2000. Both technologies lead to mass cheating, but both are also crucial tools that must be taught to children — the solution, then, must be to adjust education to fit the current state of the world.",
">\n\n\nChatGPT is decades away from fully replacing any meaningful work\n\nIt's already been shown to be able to find an average of half of the bugs in human-written software. \nIt's also a step in the technology track for software to become as good as human translators for arbitrary text in about 7 years (by the metric of \"how long does the editor have to spend to fix it\"). \nIt's not going to \"fully replace people\" any time soon, but it is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\nBasically instantly, on the timescale of how long it takes to educate humans.",
">\n\n\nit is going to quickly massively reduce the labor needed to perform relatively routine mental tasks that currently employ massive numbers of knowledge workers.\n\nMaybe, but you still need those knowledge workers to supervise ChatGPT's use. Who is responsible when ChatGPT makes a mistake? ChatGPT not only needs to understand all inputs perfectly, it also needs to have perfect knowledge about the question being asked and provide perfect answers in all scenarios. Until that day comes, you'll need a knowledge worker to take the ChatGPT output and apply it to the case at hand. \nSure, it can code. It can find bugs. But it can't gather all the stakeholders in a room and determine the best way to implement a given set of requirements across multiple internal systems.",
">\n\nSure, I totally agree. \nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \nOf course, if we can find 2x as much stuff for them to do, that can be a good thing. \nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.",
">\n\n\nToday we can make do with perhaps 10% fewer full-time knowledge workers due to various AI advances. \n\nWhy? What tasks are AI advances going to replace? Please, be specific. ChatGPT is banned at my Fortune 500 employer and there is no appetite to create an internal chatbot. So at my employer the answer is 0 because we're not allowed to use it. \n\nChatGPT looks as though it will increase that to ~25% fewer in the short term, and as much as 50% fewer within a decade or two. \n\nWhy? Again, what specific tasks will ChatGPT do? \nLet's say we're talking about code. ChatGPT cannot code unsupervised. There is no scenario where you put AI-generated code into production without reviewing it first. Which means at best all ChatGPT is doing is giving you a first draft - the coder still needs to use their brain and figure out if it works in the context of the larger project. \n\nBut educating people to avoid ChatGPT and similar systems is a recipe for economic/social mayhem. We should teach people how to deal with them instead.\n\nTotally agreed. I would love to use ChatGPT as a first draft or debugger. But anything beyond that is pure wishful thinking. I highly doubt it will be a job killer - it's more likely going to be a job creator.",
">\n\nFor the most part, knowledge workers perform a given amount of work in a given amount of hours, and the number of them hired by a company is TotalHoursNeeded/NumHoursPerEmployee. E.g. if you have 100 manyears of work to get done in a typical year, you employ 100 people.\nChat GPT isn't going to \"replace\" people wholesale, because as you say someone still needs to supervise it. But it looks to be on track to increase the productivity of programmers (can write a first draft of code and finds many of the bugs instantly). \nSame for SQA people: reduce the time needed to write test cases dramatically, automate a bunch of their tasks, especially writing-related ones. \nSo now the TotalNeeded is decreased by some percentage, let's say 10% to start. Now you only need 90 human programmers to do that same work. With 25% efficiency gain, you need 75. With 50%, 50. Etc. \nOr take translation jobs. Today, an editor spends roughly 3 minutes per word editing machine translated text, and 1 minute per word editing human-translated text. As long as editors are more expensive per hour than first translation people, it still makes sense much of the time to hire translators, because the software isn't free. \nBut the graph of machine translation \"efficiency\" is trending towards taking the same amount of time to edit as a human translator. As soon as that's hit, there's literally no reason to hire human translators, only editors. \nAnd if the editing time goes down to 30 seconds/word because of further AI assistance to the editor, you only need half as many of those.",
">\n\nThere is currently two better solutions being worked on - one of which is already being used to some degree. \nThe first is ChatGPT developers themselves making moves to make AI written works to be identified by \"watermark\" or similar. I don't thi k this one has taken effect at all yet. \nAnother is by a separate dev team that allows teachers to use software to determine the amount of an essay, for example, that is written by AI what the likelihood of any one sentence or paragraph to have been written by AI. This allows the teachers to use discretion when determining if the student used the AI in a way that they find acceptable or not. This way instead kf running from the scary AI educators can actually utilize tyhe AI with students to help them develop their writing and other communications.",
">\n\nWhat about kids with transportation issues? When I was in school I knew kids that drove almost an hour each way to get there. I certainly couldn’t have asked my parents to drop everything to take me all the way to school so I could do my homework if I forgot. Bus schedules? Do you think schools want to waste more money by burning more gas for extra routes? I understand where you’re coming from, but for a fair amount of children—especially in poorer, more rural areas—that getting to school and back is such a delicate balancing act that such a thing would just punish them.",
">\n\nI've seen a few key things from academics testing out ChatGPT (I have not signed up myself):\n\nIt tends to produce confident, convincing nonsense. It doesn't actually understand what it's writing about, and I hear it shows.\nIt makes up citations. Real authors in the field, real journals... but made-up titles. Things like that, since, again, it doesn't actually understand citations.\n\nThis suggests that, for assignments requiring the demonstration of genuine, in-depth understanding, and not merely the ability to summarize facts, ChatGPT will fail.\nA similar example that you bring up in the comments is programming cheat sheets into calculators - but for well-designed engineering exams (including the licensure exams, at least in the US), cheat sheets are fine and often either allowed or provided. A well-designed exam tests the ability to apply principles, not knowledge of equations, so a cheat sheet is harmless, or even allows the exam to work better (since people aren't distracted with memorizing equations).",
">\n\nThere are three criticisms that I have of this approach. \n\n\nShould we not teach to the environment that we live in? Yes, education often imposes arbitrary constraints like time tests but for research and reports why not let people use and work around all resources? If you can work around chat gpt to work efficiently, then do it. You learn what it can and can’t do and how to use it effectively as a tool. \n\n\nCan chatGPT on it’s own actually write a good essay? From what I have seen it can pull together a few sources. It can generally write fluff based on other things that it has seen. But it struggles to write analysis. It can’t interrogate a source or make value judgements. It could be useful for doing some filler or providing ideas but if to do an actual report, I think it would be insufficient. \n\n\nAn assignment that can be done using chatgpt is probably boring. Here I am writing an essay for no reason other than I find it interesting to discuss this topic. Perhaps, we arent giving students interesting enough assignments or we are overloading them to the point that they don’t have the time to engage? If chatGPT turns out to be an issue maybe it’s more of an indictment of the structures and norms of education.",
">\n\n\n\nhomework in the form of essays, take home tests, coding assignments, would be completed on school grounds. \n\n\nCongratulations, you've invented the \"cram school\".\nI'd recommend reading through your post again and actually thinking about the things you've said. Because essentially, you're merely advocating for the wholesale elimination of homework and for education outside of that to remain totally unchanged. It's almost literally, \"Make the school day 30% longer\".\nMy solution to the \"problem\" of students potentially using ChatGPT to cheat on homework: I don't think you need a hilariously convoluted system of homework \"boiler rooms\" redolent of national security apparatus, that requires schools to adopt ruinously expensive and disruptive technological and administrative changes.\nIt would be sufficient if we institute a system whereby teachers are encouraged to, let's say... \"test\" their students, whether by regular written exams or by talking to them in what I'll call \"classes\", to ensure they understand the material they've been assigned to learn.\nThis method ensures that students cannot use AI homework bots to coast through classes (since they'll literally be found out the very next class), and has the added benefit of not adding three hours to every teacher's day.",
">\n\nWhat about pen and ink?",
">\n\narguably I can just copy a ChatGPT output by hand. So I think that is a first level measure, but not a complete solution.",
">\n\nIt's a better solution than prison just because the curriculum can't keep up with technology.\nWhen calculators arrived on everyone's phone and everyone's pocket did you advocate for the same solution? Unlikely, so why only now with this system?",
">\n\nWell I did and I was. When I was studying engineering in the 80s we routinely could not arrive at exams with a calculator. Even then calculators were programmable enough to allow students to write cheat sheets in calculator memory.\nIt forced us to memorize equations, principals of engineering, and independent thinking. I’m a better engineer because I did.",
">\n\nSo you're what, almost 60? And you think what's best for children is to be like you? Don't you think you may be a bit out of touch?\nAlso, your view was about K12 students, not engineering students.",
">\n\nNo. As I replied, leaning on tools as a crutch all your life will limit your ability and function as a human. For example, you could argue that basic math isn’t necessary. As matter of fact that was an argument years ago with the advent of calculators.\nHowever, humans should be able to exist and functions without a digital crutch. You should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator. You should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google. There are basic elements of duration necessary since we are all still wet grey matter.",
">\n\n\nYou should be able to immediately answer the question how much is my 20% tip on a $41 meal, without breaking out a calculator\n\nBut why?\n\nYou should b able to go to a hardware store and know that 12” form a foot without leaning on Google\n\nAgain, why?\nWhere do you get your \"should\" from?\nI have basically all human knowledge in my hand, every equation or conversion I'll ever need day to day, even every language I'll likely ever encounter. Why shouldn't I leave my brain free to think about what it wants and to use my incredible resource as and when it's needed?\nDo you envision some Saw-like situation where you're locked to a wall and need to solve maths equations at pain of death?",
">\n\nThe less you use your brain the less likely your body is to maintain it. Our body functions through a use or lose it principle. Just look people who lose movement function/muscle just by being bedridden for a long time. Our brain is not different.\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.",
">\n\nIs wasting resources on process you can deletage outside not using your brain? You free up that space to put to what you decide is important.\n\nDepending too much on outside forces will make you helpless.\n\nThe weakest man with a gun can take out the strongest bodybuilder.",
">\n\nAnd if you decide Tik tok and Netflix are important? How do you think that will affect the cognitive ability of kids?\nI didn't mention strength nor physical strength. And even then the strongest man with a gun will probably take out the weakest man with a gun.(An actual fair comparison)"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.