Better they don’t learn anything at all then the lazy ones pass, right?!
I think this is stupid. Ai use is a symptom and can be controlled. But it is helpful when learning to see more advanced work so you learn how it all comes together.
Edit: I think you’re missing the point: the kids who want to make a game and learn are punished by removing this, and the kids who want to slack off aren’t being hurt by cutting corners.
I’d love to know and see the games myself. There was not a single kid mentioned in the article. It mentions “some kids” did it, but the article is speculation citing a reddit post, no one knows if AI was the reason for the programs shutdown from what I read.
That same person also suggested, however, that funding cutbacks could have been an even bigger factor in the decision, saying that “projects like this are the first to get cut” when government budgets get tight.
100% in a classroom setting but that’s not what this is. It’s not reasonable for the organizers of this national competition to be demanding source code, peer review it, understand it, and then asking the entrant to explain the code and how things work.
Keep running it, and let the ones who can learn learn? Although it was formatted as a competition, the main point of it was to assist learning, and that wouldn’t change for the kids who did put in the effort. If necessary, remove the competition part.
The main point of this was the competition, the fun was the competition for both the kids and the organizers/judges. Turning it into something else isn’t a solution to the problem the organizers were attempting to fix here since again the point and the fun here was the competition.
What’s the proposed solution for being able to easily differentiate student made projects and pure AI slop?
If I take a math course and everything is submitted from someone else solving it for me I’ll come off learning nothing.
And usually when it comes to advanced work it builds on the understanding of previous ones, so if you come off learning nothing from the one before then you hit a road block.
If you are able to do something with zero knowledge then it is something they don’t need you for, and you’ll probably lack the skills required for the advanced ones that do if you couldn’t even do the basics yourself.
When learning something like derivatives my teacher made me do it the painful slow way of doing through graphing as opposed to using a formula. Afterwards we were allowed to use formulas and then later just our calculators.
Same thing applies to coding. AI bypasses learning fundamentals if the intent of the class is to teach the basics. If people run it through AI then there’s little reason for the class to exist and funds are better spend elsewhere.
Later on: “I can’t code or figure out code… how did this happen? I took courses and I chose the AI that passed them… why don’t I know the skills they were supposed to teach? “
No reason to look at all this and assume anyone learns anything.
Better they don’t learn anything at all then the lazy ones pass, right?!
I think this is stupid. Ai use is a symptom and can be controlled. But it is helpful when learning to see more advanced work so you learn how it all comes together.
Edit: I think you’re missing the point: the kids who want to make a game and learn are punished by removing this, and the kids who want to slack off aren’t being hurt by cutting corners.
But are they learning anything other than “AI will do it for me”?
Are they learning anything when you take the fun exercise away from the motivated kids?
That’s more my issue.
If the other kids are using AI fix THAT. Don’t take away the fun projects.
You missed the point. No one was doing the “fun exercise”.
I can’t read the article because of adblock, was there truly not a single kid that submitted something not vibecoded?
I’d love to know and see the games myself. There was not a single kid mentioned in the article. It mentions “some kids” did it, but the article is speculation citing a reddit post, no one knows if AI was the reason for the programs shutdown from what I read.
Feels like AI is engagement bait here 🪤
Well then give us the solution then to this problem of being able to easily differentiate student made projects and pure AI slop.
I’m sure the organizers and judges of this competition who literally started they cannot easily do so would love your answer.
Ask the student to explain how their program works in front of the class, with time for questions at the end.
They’ll still be able to start with vibe code, but they’ll be forced to actually think.
100% in a classroom setting but that’s not what this is. It’s not reasonable for the organizers of this national competition to be demanding source code, peer review it, understand it, and then asking the entrant to explain the code and how things work.
Keep running it, and let the ones who can learn learn? Although it was formatted as a competition, the main point of it was to assist learning, and that wouldn’t change for the kids who did put in the effort. If necessary, remove the competition part.
The main point of this was the competition, the fun was the competition for both the kids and the organizers/judges. Turning it into something else isn’t a solution to the problem the organizers were attempting to fix here since again the point and the fun here was the competition.
What’s the proposed solution for being able to easily differentiate student made projects and pure AI slop?
If I take a math course and everything is submitted from someone else solving it for me I’ll come off learning nothing.
And usually when it comes to advanced work it builds on the understanding of previous ones, so if you come off learning nothing from the one before then you hit a road block.
If you are able to do something with zero knowledge then it is something they don’t need you for, and you’ll probably lack the skills required for the advanced ones that do if you couldn’t even do the basics yourself.
As I posted on another comment:
Are they learning anything when you take the fun exercise away from the motivated kids?
That’s more my issue.
If the other kids are using AI fix THAT. Don’t take away the fun projects.
When learning something like derivatives my teacher made me do it the painful slow way of doing through graphing as opposed to using a formula. Afterwards we were allowed to use formulas and then later just our calculators.
Same thing applies to coding. AI bypasses learning fundamentals if the intent of the class is to teach the basics. If people run it through AI then there’s little reason for the class to exist and funds are better spend elsewhere.
Later on: “I can’t code or figure out code… how did this happen? I took courses and I chose the AI that passed them… why don’t I know the skills they were supposed to teach? “
No reason to look at all this and assume anyone learns anything.
What drives me nuts is that they’re still getting diplomas from good schools, so now interviews are a grueling multi-day gauntlet.