What's the carrot for being honest then?
If you give cheaters too many chances, the other students will feel betrayed. And I guess rightly so.
It's not uncommon to get mails directly, or later in course evaluation, from students who complain about other students that didn't put in the work. I can only remember few cases where there were names involved. Typically it's some general complaint, but the frustration is obvious.
It sucks when you make an effort but witness other students cheating their way through the class. What are we supposed to tell them when the dishonest behaviour of other students doesn't cause any consequences?
In theory I can always do a short verbal test. But apart from the shock effect that doesn't have any consequences...
With the difference that the industrial revolution created a lot of new jobs with better pay. While AI doesn't. I see people suggesting that this has happened before and soon it will turn the economic situation into something much better. But I don't see that at all. Just because it's also a huge revolution, doesn't mean it will have the same effects.
As you have written, people will have to switch into manual jobs like layering bricks and wiping butts. The pay in these jobs won't increase just because more people have to work them.
Your fear is in so far justified as that some employers will definitely aim to reduce their workforce by implementing AI workflow.
When you have worked for the same employer all this time, perhaps you don't know, but a lot of employers do not give two shits about code quality. They want cheap and fast labour and having less people churning out more is a good thing in their eyes, regardless of (long-term) quality. May sound cynical, but that is my experience.
My prediction is that the income gap will increase dramatically because good pay will be reserved for the truly exceptional few. While the rest will be confronted with yet another tool capitalists will use to increase profits.
Maybe very far down the line there is blissful utopia where no one has to work anymore. But between then and now, AI would have to get a lot better. Until then it will be mainly used by corporations to justify hiring less people.
I've often seen people on Lemmy confidently state that current "AI" thinks and learns exactly like humans and that LLMs work exactly like human brains, etc.
Can you give a more concrete example what, in your opinion, gives them a feeling to not have a voice or to not be heared (on comparison to other groups)?
If you read online about current discussions regarding nature VS nurture, people are actually influenced more by a combination of peer pressure and media/cultural influence than their parents.
Sadly this also means that it's unlikely that, as a parent, you have much of a chance to work against those influences.
Sadly, this is even an issue at university. As a lecture assistant I will just get ignored or not taken seriously by some groups of young male students. They will talk loudly, ignore my request to not talk during lecture or exercise. My male colleagues don't have such issues and it angers me more each year...
This is the same argument as with "All Lives matter". Why do people have to be against feminism to talk about issues men face? Because that is what I am seeing. On Lemmy or even Reddit, I didn't see people laugh about male domestic abuse victims. But literally every discussion about it had misogynistic and anti-feminist comments.
Instead of emancipating from dehumanising and rigid gender norms for men, it seems like these Tate fans and red pillers and sigma, alpha men are trying to turn back the clock.
You want to tell them: "Stop, you are running into the wrong direction!"
I mean... They didn't really. Unless you believe everything is true on the internet.