then you're discriminating against students not using AI. I for sure know I really would be depressed to be asked for a huge pile of work I'll do myself when other will just cheat and have free time to do something else work on interesting projects or see friends whatever.
Would the solution not be to pivot to more in-person demonstrations of skill and knowledge? Say the tests and exams become hand written, or taken in a controlled lab or whatever, so you need to eventually pick up the skill. But how you pick up the skill is irrelevant.
Maybe the issue is, somewhat, the concept of graded homework in the first place. It's meant to be practice material, but is only actually useful as practice material if students put in that work. A lot of students come to resent the mountains of at-home work as the busywork that it feels like in the moment, and I feel like this whole set of emotions underpins the argument but isn't really called out for what it is all that often. Teachers understand the value of actually doing that practice, but the grading system rewards, instead, rushing through the busywork as quickly as possible. Are we not testing for the right things?
> Would the solution not be to pivot to more in-person demonstrations of skill and knowledge?
Yeah, this seems like the obvious conclusion.
It probably is. But it's probably also more expensive and doesn't necessarily apply across all domains--certainly not all the time.
I don't consider the use of AI cheating. I think of it as a reasonable skill to be applied to work.
To be frank, a lot of programming is busywork, boilerplate, looking up information. Now that an AI can do that for my students I expect them to spend the time made up on developing higher level skills.