Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Traditional lectures are obsolete (Score 1) 17

What nonsense. First, the most important part in teaching is to select the materials and structure them in a way that makes sense. Second is the actual teaching and anybody halfway competent does far more than just reading the slides. It is about demonstrating you know your stuff, the materials are worthwhile working through, you respect the time of the participants and any good lecture will also need a real entertainment factor.

I think you have never designed and then held a lecture. And if you ever have heard lectures, apparently they were not any good.

Comment Re:AI is terrible. (Score 1) 17

Indeed. As an example, I currently have a student looking at all the major AIs (including coding ones with paid subscriptions) for code security review. With small, well known samples they are good. With larger samples, they are >50% fail. With CVEs (the things that matter) they are so far almost 100% fail.

Add that using AI coding assistants makes you about 20% slower, and the only thing AI could be called for this application is "completely unsuitable".

Comment high-value scam (Score 1) 77

We see these ideas that are obviously nonsense all the time. This one has been picked apart by multiple people with industry experience already.

What these things are is essentially the venture capital version of the scam mails you get in your mailbox every day. If you make it big enough and insane enough, someone with more money than brains will think he spotted an opportunity that everyone else missed and will invest.

Why is it, you think, that 99% of these things vanish without a trace after an initial storm of publicity?

Comment Re:Look... kid... (Score 1) 17

Hahaha, in 4 years the collapse of the hallucination that LLMs are actually very useful will have concluded. Things are already mightily crumbling. Those that apply themselves and learn stuff will find something worthwhile in 4 years. Obviously, with this mockery of teaching, that will be impossible, but real teaching is still being done. You just need to insist on it.

Comment A complete failure (Score 1) 17

The primary job of a lecturer is design of the lecture, select the material and structure it. That requires insight, experience and understanding of the target audience. The second most important thing is teaching the material and that requires a lot more than just standing there and reading the slides. In fact, just reading the slides is a complete fail. What you need to di is talk about what is ion the slides, signal what is important, how this relates to the rest of the world, what is the future perspective and, most important, do a bit of storytelling with real-world examples not on the slides, etc. The students must have the impression you know your stuff, and that you, as the lecturer, respect their time and provide something of value. That is what keeps them engaged and is critical for the learning effect. Things must be _interesting_ for them.

Hence this "course" is a complete fail and waste of time and essentially a scam. The students would have been much better served by being told to buy a specific book and to work through it.

AI

'We Could've Asked ChatGPT': UK Students Fight Back Over Course Taught By AI (theguardian.com) 17

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Guardian: James and Owen were among 41 students who took a coding module at the University of Staffordshire last year, hoping to change careers through a government-funded apprenticeship programme designed to help them become cybersecurity experts or software engineers. But after a term of AI-generated slides being read, at times, by an AI voiceover, James said he had lost faith in the programme and the people running it, worrying he had "used up two years" of his life on a course that had been done "in the cheapest way possible".

"If we handed in stuff that was AI-generated, we would be kicked out of the uni, but we're being taught by an AI," said James during a confrontation with his lecturer recorded as a part of the course in October 2024. James and other students confronted university officials multiple times about the AI materials. But the university appears to still be using AI-generated materials to teach the course. This year, the university uploaded a policy statement to the course website appearing to justify the use of AI, laying out "a framework for academic professionals leveraging AI automation" in scholarly work and teaching...

For students, AI teaching appears to be less transformative than it is demoralising. In the US, students post negative online reviews about professors who use AI. In the UK, undergraduates have taken to Reddit to complain about their lecturers copying and pasting feedback from ChatGPT or using AI-generated images in courses.

"I feel like a bit of my life was stolen," James told the Guardian (which also quotes an unidentified student saying they felt "robbed of knowledge and enjoyment".) But the article also points out that a survey last year of 3,287 higher-education teaching staff by edtech firm Jisc found that nearly a quarter were using AI tools in their teaching.
Music

Napster Said It Raised $3 Billion From a Mystery Investor. But Now the 'Investor' and 'Money' Are Gone (forbes.com) 21

An anonymous reader shared this report from Forbes: On November 20, at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern time, Napster held an online meeting for its shareholders; an estimated 700 of roughly 1,500 including employees, former employees and individual investors tuned in. That's when its CEO John Acunto told everyone he believed that the never-identified big investor — who the company had insisted put in $3.36 billion at a $12 billion valuation in January, which would have made it one of the year's biggest fundraises — was not going to come through.

In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a "victim of misconduct," adding that it was "assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations." As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. "Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur," the company wrote in the email.

At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they've been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise "were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate."

The article notes America's Department of Justice has launched an investigation (in which Napster is not a target), while the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate ongoing investigation from 2022 into Napster's scrapped reverse merger.

While Napster announced they'd been acquired for $207 million by a tech company named Infinite Reality, Forbes says that company faced "a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google. The company also touted 'top-tier' investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in "an Infinite Reality account and is available to us" and that they were 'actively leveraging' it..."

And by the end, "Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators.... If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn't happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That's because doing so could be considered securities fraud."

Slashdot Top Deals

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...