When they say that, when checking standard homework,

[tanjimajuha20]

The thing is that if homework is given based on textbooks, it will be shamelessly ripped off from the GDZ websites. Coming up with exercises on your own is also quite difficult in the eternal school rush - and teachers should not do the work of developers of educational and methodological literature. And this measure is ineffective, unless you prepare individual exercises for each individual student. But for each student, when there are hundreds of them per macedonia whatsapp number database teacher, you can’t come up with an assignment, but if you give two or three options per class, they will copy from each other, and the first in this chain can use the help of neural networks. Teenagers, unlike their teachers, are not afraid of technology.

the teacher still delves into each student, writes some individual comments, I can only smile skeptically. The average teacher in Russia works 1.5 times a day, he has at least five lessons in different classes per day. Five lessons - five homework assignments. Checking notebooks of just one class takes about an hour (that is, up to five hours a day). And this time is spent simply reviewing the work, marking errors with standard sticks and check marks in the margins and selectively comparing work with the GDZ.

There is no time or emotional resource left for any touching messages. With the existing workload, teachers try to optimize even the minimum requirements for checking as much as possible. Teachers reserve thoughtful checking for tests and assessments, not for homework. Colleagues, especially inclined to boring conversations about selflessness and other asceticism, may be offended by me, but this is reality - human resources are limited, no one can always jump above their heads.

And in this situation, automation at least does not aggravate anything in the long run. And if you approach the issue competently, then the matter can be improved. It is certainly possible to write a script to identify thoughtlessly copied works. Teachers also see them, of course, with the naked eye, but they still have the tacit burden of proof, and this means unnecessary conflicts with students and their parents. And here the machine will reject the work, let them sort it out. As they say: write to "Sportloto".

They will say, but this will make education even more soulless. And who said that malicious cheaters who do not want to study and their scandalous parents must be treated with all their heart? What kind of aspiration to the position of an eternal victim is this?

Maybe, on the contrary, clear machine algorithms will sober someone up and make them come to their senses? And this is already some kind of benefit.
In general, the issue is not artificial intelligence, but how it is used. Machines are not the enemies of the human race. People themselves are the enemies of people. If there is no intelligence, then machine brains will not help. But if the pot is boiling, then computer programs can be configured to benefit everyone.