Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kanigogo.
Speaker 2: And I'm Nate Silver.
Speaker 1: So today on the show, Nate, we're gonna first revisit
Speaker 1: our predictions about the conclave. They were wrong, as was
Speaker 1: basically everyone else's, and then talk a little Coker and
Speaker 1: my recent trip to Monte Carlo.
Speaker 2: And I'll try to slip in a few New York
Speaker 2: Knicks references you may notice on the show. But we'll
Speaker 2: also talk about the rampant use of chat GPT to
Speaker 2: cheat on college campuses, inspired by a recent article in
Speaker 2: New York Magazine.
Speaker 1: So with that, Nate, let's dive in. I'm so sorry
Speaker 1: that Pizza Bala did not end up becoming pope. That
Speaker 1: would have been fun. However, pizza is definitely on everyone's
Speaker 1: minds because the pope is from Chicago, and we all
Speaker 1: know that Chicago is famous for its deep dish pizza.
Speaker 1: In fact, Nate, the last time we had a meal
Speaker 1: together was over Chicago style people.
Speaker 2: You know, the last time we talked about Chicago, you
Speaker 2: actually encouraged me to get peaquads pizza, which I know
Speaker 2: and love and like, I had the whole it was
Speaker 2: a lunch sized pizza. Right. I have not had that
Speaker 2: accumulation of like that much dairy, I don't think in years.
Speaker 2: Pick Quads is amazing. You should visit it.
Speaker 1: This podcast is sponsored by Peaquad's Pizza use our affiliate length.
Speaker 2: I'm just kidding, No, I found this very interesting because, like,
Speaker 2: I lived in Chicago. The guy's a Chicago White Sox fan.
Speaker 2: He's a Villanova a basketball fan, and attended Villanova, has
Speaker 2: a mathematics degree. So it's like, you know, neither of
Speaker 2: us are Catholic. We're not going to shock you with that,
Speaker 2: I don't think, but like, it's very strange to have
Speaker 2: a pope that's kind of like memeable and relatable to Americans.
Speaker 2: And this was not well predicted at prediction markets. He
Speaker 2: had had around a one percent chance of becoming the pope.
Speaker 2: If you look at various shortlists and long lists published
Speaker 2: by various userganizations. You know, the New York Times mentions
Speaker 2: him in like the twentieth paragraph. The Washington Post doesn't
Speaker 2: mention him at all, for example, and yet he won,
Speaker 2: I believe after just the second day of the conclave.
Speaker 2: Do you know how many ballots there.
Speaker 1: Were we don't, but it was just over twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: so it could not have been more than four ballots.
Speaker 1: That would have been I think the maximum given the
Speaker 1: amount of time, if I remember correctly about how the
Speaker 1: ballot process works.
Speaker 2: So once this decision came quickly, markets assumed that one
Speaker 2: of the front runners is going to win, right, which
Speaker 2: is a dynamic we had talked about on the program beforehand,
Speaker 2: and that was you know, maybe he was a front runner,
Speaker 2: but nobody knew it. So I think it was a
Speaker 2: pretty big failure of both the conventional wisdom and crediction
Speaker 2: markets right where. I guess the conclave is pretty good
Speaker 2: at keeping secrets, maybe more than like, you know, than
Speaker 2: the United States Congresses for example. There weren't a lot
Speaker 2: of leaks, and I think it reflects the kind of
Speaker 2: changing global climate toward the United States, right. You know.
Speaker 2: One of the few outlets that did it in an
Speaker 2: article about him was Axios, and they're like, well, this
Speaker 2: would never happen because the Catholic Church doesn't want to
Speaker 2: give the US government more influence, or the United States
Speaker 2: and not the government, I guess, more influence. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: what do they want to influence the United States, right,
Speaker 2: and have some counterweight to President Trump. You know what's
Speaker 2: a good counterweight, you know, probably not the Speaker of
Speaker 2: the House. Maybe the pope is like the only person
Speaker 2: who can be like on a stage as a counterweight.
Speaker 2: And you know, Greemost had had an active Twitter account too, right,
Speaker 2: He had criticized mostly through retweets, not things he wrote himself,
Speaker 2: criticized JD. Vance criticized the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Speaker 2: Marilyn Man who was accidentally sent to an l Salador
Speaker 2: in prison. And so it's making a.
Speaker 1: Statement, Yeah, And I think that I think that we
Speaker 1: see that psychologically something happened here and also something that
Speaker 1: you and I have talked about night that you write
Speaker 1: about in terms of kind of how betting and prediction
Speaker 1: markets work. So the first part of the psychology part,
Speaker 1: I think people had kind of bad priors, right, and
Speaker 1: let kind of their biases in an historical precedent influence
Speaker 1: this a little bit too much, saying oh, you know, well,
Speaker 1: an American could never be pope and you can't have
Speaker 1: that sort of blanket statement rights, that's a bias where
Speaker 1: you are you're actually kind of anchoring yourself to a
Speaker 1: really incorrect starting point, which gets into my second point
Speaker 1: that you've written about, which is that this is not
Speaker 1: an event where we have tons of data and statistics. Right,
Speaker 1: this isn't the super Bowl that happens every single year.
Speaker 1: Like the last time that we had a papal election
Speaker 1: was what twelve years ago? And you know, there have
Speaker 1: been decades where there haven't where there hasn't been one,
Speaker 1: and the world changes and different things change, and people
Speaker 1: don't know much about what happens inside the Vatican and
Speaker 1: all of that, and yet we think, right, we're a
Speaker 1: little bit overconfident in thinking that we know more than
Speaker 1: we do and that we have more data than we do.
Speaker 1: It's always incredibly incredibly risky to make predictions based on incomplete,
Speaker 1: faulty data.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look, prediction markets can accentuate that when people
Speaker 2: are like, well they're pretty smart, someone must do something right,
Speaker 2: and they are smart in many circumstances. Right, In general,
Speaker 2: there is in markets various kinds of a long shot bias,
Speaker 2: meaning people are actually a little bit under confident relative
Speaker 2: to the favorite usually prevailing. But if you have no
Speaker 2: information to go off, right, you know, there are what
Speaker 2: a two hundred and fifty one cardinals in the College
Speaker 2: of Cardinals. Right. You know, technically speaking, any baptized Catholic
Speaker 2: male is eligible to become pope. Right. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: you just want to spin a wheel one in two
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty one or whatever. But but you know,
Speaker 2: especially after the white smoke came out and people like, oh,
Speaker 2: now we know for sure, right, this is a case
Speaker 2: where the conditions were not in place for prediction markets
Speaker 2: to be particularly wise.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you actually you write on the edge a
Speaker 1: little bit about how prediction markets and sports betting falters
Speaker 1: and certain events where there's dumb money as well, right,
Speaker 1: where there's a proliferation of people who don't know as
Speaker 1: much about it that some events are much easier to
Speaker 1: bet on than others, just depending on who the betters are.
Speaker 1: And I think from a psychological standpoint, you also get
Speaker 1: into these groups think echo chambers, where you start amplifying
Speaker 1: things that are already kind of front runners, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Not for any good reason, right, but oh well,
Speaker 1: because he said so, I guess I think so. And
Speaker 1: then on and on it goes. It's like those psych
Speaker 1: studies right where there's a number of statistic that's been
Speaker 1: cited thousands of times, and then you actually try to
Speaker 1: unravel it and figure out, way, where did we get this?
Speaker 1: And you find the study from nineteen sixty four that
Speaker 1: was based on twelve people, and that's where the number
Speaker 1: came from, and you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa. This number
Speaker 1: that has now become gospel is actually incredibly suspect. That
Speaker 1: has happened to me so many times where I've actually
Speaker 1: tried to kind of retrace the steps of how it happens.
Speaker 1: But especially with social media and kind of the way
Speaker 1: information spreads these days, it's very easy to create those effects.
Speaker 2: And if you actually make sports bets, especially I'm betting
Speaker 2: the NBA playoffs a little bit go Nix, by the way,
Speaker 2: you'll sometimes see lines where you're like, this doesn't make
Speaker 2: any sense, right, So somebody must know something, or the
Speaker 2: market must be accounting for some psychological factor or some
Speaker 2: injury that like I'm not accounting for, right, And if
Speaker 2: that were always true, then you could say, Okay, even
Speaker 2: though my model says that Nick's have a forty percent chance,
Speaker 2: the market applug, you just have a twenty percent chance.
Speaker 2: So maybe the twenty percent actually of the good bet here,
Speaker 2: and if you're making our sports bets, you learn that
Speaker 2: it's not predictable when the market knows something and when
Speaker 2: it doesn't. Obviously, markets are tough to beat in general,
Speaker 2: but sometimes it is full of shit, right and many
Speaker 2: times it's not, And you're the one feeling embarrassed after all.
Speaker 2: Instead you say, boy, you know Vegas is so smart,
Speaker 2: but like it's not always smart? Right if it was
Speaker 2: always smart? Yeah, piggyback off it and you kind of can't.
Speaker 1: Dude, I have a question for you, what you know
Speaker 1: if if you were to say, okay, there's a skill
Speaker 1: set and maybe the answer is no to figuring out
Speaker 1: other than what we've already talked about, right events that
Speaker 1: happen frequently, versus not to figuring out, Okay, these are
Speaker 1: things that prediction markets are probably smarter on and these
Speaker 1: are where they're not right. Is there is there a
Speaker 1: way that you think about that, like how to figure
Speaker 1: out you know what, I shouldn't be listening to the
Speaker 1: experts in this particular case, I shouldn't be listening to
Speaker 1: the markets particular case, because I think that's actually a
Speaker 1: really interesting question.
Speaker 2: I mean, you've touched on some of this, right, Like,
Speaker 2: you know, question one is how much domain knowledge does
Speaker 2: the average trader have? I mean, the average person's betting
Speaker 2: on the NBA of the NFL probably knows more about
Speaker 2: the NBA and the NFL, And the average person betting
Speaker 2: at polymarket on the identity of the pope knows about
Speaker 2: the Catholic church. Frankly, I don't think the kind of
Speaker 2: church following personality type overlaps much with the you know,
Speaker 2: crypto adjacent prediction market startup betting type person Right. Next
Speaker 2: is is there are there institutional investors professional class of
Speaker 2: investors who are who are sucking up the week money
Speaker 2: to make the market balance?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Or you know, so for example for elections, investment banks
Speaker 2: and hedge funds and rich gamblers like all our betting
Speaker 2: serious money, there's a professional class. Certainly that's true for
Speaker 2: the Super Bowl or anything like that. Right. Again, the
Speaker 2: pope doesn't probably have action geopolitical consequences in the same way,
Speaker 2: so he probably don't have that. Right. Is it a
Speaker 2: repeated thing where people can calibrate their models? Is it
Speaker 2: even mathematically modelable by anything beyond like very naive methods?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: And I mean, you know, models are hard for a
Speaker 2: lot of things, but that puts like some bumpers on
Speaker 2: how far unmored a prediction can get right. And so
Speaker 2: all these boxes are not checked for papal predictions, whereas
Speaker 2: they might be forbidding in the playoffs in the NBA.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I saw someone was writing about kind of did anyone
Speaker 1: predict this? And there was one publication that actually had
Speaker 1: Robert Privost as one of the top contenders, and it
Speaker 1: was a Catholic like it was a niche Catholic publication,
Speaker 1: I don't remember which one it was. Didn't have them
Speaker 1: as the front runner, but it at least mentioned his name.
Speaker 1: You and I, by the way, didn't even mention his name. Right,
Speaker 1: he wasn't on our radar because he wasn't on the
Speaker 1: radar of any of the sources that we actually well.
Speaker 2: If anything, you think there might be a bias for
Speaker 2: we're saying, oh, there's just cogo guy might become pope, right,
Speaker 2: you think there might be more coverage and moves might be,
Speaker 2: Oh you got to short him, They're gonna, you know,
Speaker 2: not pick an American guy. But I he just kind
Speaker 2: of didn't really enter the conversation very much, except you know,
Speaker 2: I did be done a see article, you know for
Speaker 2: like a Catholic source. They kind of said, oh, it's
Speaker 2: interesting that people are betting on the pope. We're not
Speaker 2: sure how we feel about that as Catholics, but they're
Speaker 2: way over confident because nobody knows anything right and that
Speaker 2: proved to be prescient.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, all right, so so let's let's see how
Speaker 1: he ends up doing and let's see how how this
Speaker 1: all ends up going.
Speaker 2: So America is winning, Maria. Uh the Knicks are winning.
Speaker 1: Which makes it I'm doubly happy because as an ex Bostonian,
Speaker 1: I hate Boston sports fans. Really, they just suck, and
Speaker 1: so I'm i anti sweat the Celtics, and as a
Speaker 1: New Yorker, I'm pro next. So I'm just I'm deliriously happy.
Speaker 1: I'm actually interested in the outcome of these games today.
Speaker 2: But you're winning too, So tell me about, uh our
Speaker 2: telling me and the audience about this win you had
Speaker 2: in Monte Carlo.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I just came back from EPT Monte Carlo,
Speaker 1: which is the Poker Stars signature stop on the European
Speaker 1: Poker Tour. Beautiful venuinate. I hope you come next year.
Speaker 1: But I had not been having a good trip at all.
Speaker 1: I've never cashed in the main event there. I still
Speaker 1: did not cash in the main event, ended up playing
Speaker 1: a twenty five K, did not cash in that. When
Speaker 1: you don't cash those big events, it doesn't feel good,
Speaker 1: and just was running horribly right. I kept getting two
Speaker 1: out at three out and four outed. For our non
Speaker 1: poker playing fans, that means, you know, improbable combinations of
Speaker 1: cards kept getting there against me, and so I was
Speaker 1: just very discouraged. And I ended up winning the final event,
Speaker 1: which was a really really nice way to end the trip.
Speaker 1: And the final that was actually a turbo structure, which
Speaker 1: is very different from kind of your standard tournament. It
Speaker 1: means that the blind levels aren't increasing quite quickly, and
Speaker 1: so your strategy actually has to change a little bit, because, yes,
Speaker 1: you might start with two hundred big blinds, and whereas
Speaker 1: you know, in a normal tournament you might have that
Speaker 1: for forty minutes, half an hour, an hour, whatever it is.
Speaker 1: Here like suddenly, if you don't do stuff in twenty minutes,
Speaker 1: you look and you have thirty big blinds left, right,
Speaker 1: Because the blind structure is moving so quickly. It's such
Speaker 1: a dynamic tournament, and so in situations like this, you
Speaker 1: need to be first of all, more aggressive, right. You
Speaker 1: need to play. You can't just sit around waiting for
Speaker 1: good hands, because otherwise you will blind out. This is
Speaker 1: one of those cases where doing nothing is doing something,
Speaker 1: and it's not a good thing, and you have to
Speaker 1: actually be a little bit different with the hand combinations
Speaker 1: that you choose to play because very quickly, this is
Speaker 1: not deep stacked poker, this is short stacked poker. So
Speaker 1: the value of hands changes. So you need to play
Speaker 1: high card hands much more, low suited connectors much less,
Speaker 1: because you'll get into situations where people are going to
Speaker 1: get very short, especially people who didn't play correctly right
Speaker 1: and who now find themselves with very few chips, and
Speaker 1: they're going to shove on you, which means they're going
Speaker 1: to put all their chips in the middle. And you
Speaker 1: have to know that in advance and know how you're
Speaker 1: going to respond and be in a situation where you
Speaker 1: can have a hand that can call those shoves, because
Speaker 1: otherwise you're also going to bleed chips right if you
Speaker 1: open too much and then keep folding when people are
Speaker 1: aggressive against you, and so it's a slightly different mindset,
Speaker 1: and it does require I think a lot of preparation
Speaker 1: ahead of time because you don't have much time to think.
Speaker 1: You just need to know your range as well. You
Speaker 1: need to know your cards well, you need to know
Speaker 1: your response as well. We had a ten second shot
Speaker 1: clock in this tournament, so you had ten seconds to
Speaker 1: make every single decision, no matter what street you were on.
Speaker 1: And we had a few time banks, and each of
Speaker 1: those time banks and it was ten seconds. So it's
Speaker 1: actually kind of beautiful. It's a very it's fun because
Speaker 1: it's so dynamic and so much happens, but there's also
Speaker 1: an element of luck when you get into a fast
Speaker 1: structure like that.
Speaker 2: This is a one day tournament or yes, okay, yeah, Look.
Speaker 2: The other thing that's tricky about these events I want
Speaker 2: to ask you about is like, Okay, typically if you
Speaker 2: have a big tournament series, you're toward the end of
Speaker 2: the series and you have these turbos for people that
Speaker 2: you know have busted out of the big events they're
Speaker 2: hoping to play. There's also typically a lot of tilt, right,
Speaker 2: people are trying to place very high to make up
Speaker 2: for their entry fees. Right, we're getting the plane and
Speaker 2: go home. So how do you balance that? I mean, again,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying you have tilt. You can tell us
Speaker 2: about that if you do right. I'm saying the fact
Speaker 2: that like people are maybe calling down lighter and bluffing
Speaker 2: a little bit more. At the same time, with a
Speaker 2: turbo structure, you do need to widen your rain, which
Speaker 2: is quite a bit, right, So how do you how
Speaker 2: did you manage that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you have to widen your ranges, but also
Speaker 1: widen them correctly, so I you know, raggedy aces go
Speaker 1: up in value, et cetera, so you need to kind
Speaker 1: of know also what hands people will be undervaluing. So
Speaker 1: I got quite lucky early on where I ended up.
Speaker 1: Someone opened and I called a pocket pair. I call it,
Speaker 1: you know, it was a pair of deuces, a tiny
Speaker 1: pocket paar and someone else called and the flop came
Speaker 1: with a deuce in it, which means that I had
Speaker 1: flopped a set. But there was also an ace, and
Speaker 1: there was one guy who was clearly very tilted. Because
Speaker 1: this for older French gentleman who just wanted chips right,
Speaker 1: he clearly just was frustrated. This was very early on
Speaker 1: in the tournament, so we still had a lot of
Speaker 1: chips and no one had busted out yet, right, like
Speaker 1: this is how early we are. I think we're level one,
Speaker 1: maybe level two. And you could tell that like he
Speaker 1: just like he had been playing every hand, like he
Speaker 1: just really wanted chips, and so he bet, I raised,
Speaker 1: he called, and anyway, he ended up losing right and
Speaker 1: busting and was the first player to bust out of
Speaker 1: the tournament to me. And he had like I don't
Speaker 1: even remember, it was like ace three off suit, right,
Speaker 1: he didn't even have a good ace. It was a
Speaker 1: shitty ace, but he just didn't believe me, and I
Speaker 1: think he was tired of people picking on him. And
Speaker 1: he was definitely tilting. And I've played with him before,
Speaker 1: like he's not that bad of a player, but it
Speaker 1: was just an awful play and he just gave me
Speaker 1: all his chips, which was a great start obviously to
Speaker 1: the to the tournament. But I think that you need
Speaker 1: to look for spots like that and be willing to
Speaker 1: kind of take full advantage of them. So like, for instance,
Speaker 1: some people would say, oh, you know, don't get greedy
Speaker 1: on the river, don't go all in because he's not
Speaker 1: gonna call I was like, no, actually he will. You know,
Speaker 1: do get greedy because in those in those spots, you're
Speaker 1: going to get lucky against people who are just done
Speaker 1: right and they don't want you to bully them. And
Speaker 1: so especially because I'm female, that dynamic is very strong.
Speaker 1: People don't want me to bully them.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, and to the older frenchmen out there, I'd say,
Speaker 2: you know, we understand that you're not always going to
Speaker 2: play your A game and when you're tired in a
Speaker 2: long series, even the B game can be asking a
Speaker 2: lot avoiding the f game right where you you know, look,
Speaker 2: I'll be honest, right, you know, I think I know
Speaker 2: my range is pretty well in a lot of spots, and
Speaker 2: I'll know when I can like loosen up just slightly,
Speaker 2: you know, be a little bit more aggressive. You can
Speaker 2: bluff sometimes, but like the multi street desperate call downs
Speaker 2: are like the most easy way to like literally burn money.
Speaker 1: And you know, by that stage in the in the
Speaker 1: tournament series, when it is kind of one of the
Speaker 1: last events this happened to be the last event, but
Speaker 1: when it is kind of one of the last events,
Speaker 1: people are tired and a lot of people are playing
Speaker 1: their C game their D game, and if you're one
Speaker 1: of the people who's not and who can actually take
Speaker 1: advantage of that, I think that can be a huge
Speaker 1: advantage if you're willing to be aggressive in the right
Speaker 1: spots and also don't have ego and willing to fold
Speaker 1: right in the right spots. So like be willing. I
Speaker 1: did this as well to kind of throw your cards
Speaker 1: away in a heartbeat. So I had a few very
Speaker 1: successful bluffs that got through, and then I got very
Speaker 1: lucky at the final table. When we got to the
Speaker 1: final table, I had a good amount of chips, but
Speaker 1: the chip leader, so the person with the most chips
Speaker 1: was to my immediate left, and we got into a
Speaker 1: big hand. So this was it's not good ICM. So
Speaker 1: ICM is we've talked about this on the show. It's
Speaker 1: the independent chip model. So basically, you know when they're
Speaker 1: big pay jumps and when you're down to the final table,
Speaker 1: you don't really want to tangle with the chip leader
Speaker 1: when there are lots of people who are shorter than you,
Speaker 1: because you could be committing ICM suicide. But in this
Speaker 1: particular case, someone had opened, someone else had flatted, and
Speaker 1: I had pocket jacks and like thirty big blinds something
Speaker 1: like that, and so I jammed right because there was
Speaker 1: dead money in the pot and I had you know,
Speaker 1: I had a very strong hand, and I didn't want
Speaker 1: that many people in the in the pot because pocket
Speaker 1: jacks are a strong hand. But you don't want it
Speaker 1: five way pot with pocket jacks because you know, Ace
Speaker 1: King queen. There are lots of things that can happen.
Speaker 1: And then the chip leader rejammed over me and I
Speaker 1: was like, oh no, right, that's the one person that
Speaker 1: you want to fold, and he had Ace King and
Speaker 1: I ended up holding and winning that race, and so
Speaker 1: he was still in, but that put me into the
Speaker 1: chip lead and that's huge, right that hand.
Speaker 2: You're praying for the ace King there. You're not going
Speaker 2: to see pocket tens. I don't think or anything anything.
Speaker 1: No, no, I'm praying for the ace King once he
Speaker 1: once he went all in, I was like, oh no,
Speaker 1: I am going to be out and whatever it is,
Speaker 1: you know, eighth place and I that would have been horrible,
Speaker 1: but yeah, the Ace King is the best case scenario.
Speaker 1: And luckily my handheld. So I think that that's those
Speaker 1: spots like you have to get lucky right, and I
Speaker 1: was technically a little bit ahead. But it's really a
Speaker 1: flip when you have a pocket pair against ace King.
Speaker 2: So how much did you win?
Speaker 1: So I didn't you know, it wasn't it. It wasn't
Speaker 1: a huge win. It was around twenty thousand, so not
Speaker 1: definitely not one of my you know, biggest scores, but
Speaker 1: it was a small buy in and it was a
Speaker 1: really nice way to uh to end the end the week. Well,
Speaker 1: congratulations Maria, Thank you so much, Nate, And yeah, I
Speaker 1: look forward to uh playing with you in the world
Speaker 1: series that's coming up in just a few weeks.
Speaker 2: It's shockingly soon. I mean I'm not playing until like
Speaker 2: the second or third week of the series.
Speaker 1: There am I Neither am I? But I hope that
Speaker 1: I hope that we both win all of our flips,
Speaker 1: or at least most of our flips, that we run
Speaker 1: better than music a less. Yeah, let's take a quick
Speaker 1: break and then let's talk a little bit about chat GPT.
Speaker 2: Nate.
Speaker 1: So, there was a big piece in New York magazine
Speaker 1: last week about cheating on college campuses and chat GPT,
Speaker 1: and I know that you are writing about this for
Speaker 1: your Substack Silver bulletin. So do you want to just
Speaker 1: set the scene a little bit and tell us kind
Speaker 1: of about some of the concerns here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, look, if you have any friends who
Speaker 2: are college professors of any kind, they'll probably tell you
Speaker 2: the same concerns, right, which is that, you know, a
Speaker 2: lot of classes rely on a model where students have
Speaker 2: homework they can do at home. And for a long time,
Speaker 2: obviously you can, you know, you can go on the
Speaker 2: internet and look up information that way. There have always
Speaker 2: been services that would offer to do your homework for you.
Speaker 2: Right there are you know, ancient and modern versions of
Speaker 2: cliffs notes and things like that, if you uh, you know,
Speaker 2: the line between working with a friend on a problem
Speaker 2: set and copying your friend's answers has always been blurry,
Speaker 2: I think, but like but now chat chipetem makes it
Speaker 2: very very tempting to cheat, and especially for like written essays,
Speaker 2: but also you know problem sets for economic classes and
Speaker 2: things like that, and and so yeah, I tried to
Speaker 2: actually I imagine that I had given myself an assignment.
Speaker 2: You know, the philosopher Michelle Fuco. Of course, French guy
Speaker 2: weird into s and m into lots of stuff ball
Speaker 2: you know, but like very famous philosopher. My whole mo
Speaker 2: in college was to always mention, always named up Fuco right,
Speaker 2: And every time I named up put then I would
Speaker 2: get at least an a minus on the paper. Right,
Speaker 2: But like I gave myself an assignment to compare the
Speaker 2: concept of the panopticon, which is this all seeing prison
Speaker 2: where there's like a guard tower in the center. Right,
Speaker 2: it was Bentham's idea who co wrote a lot about
Speaker 2: this is a metaphor for modern surveillance states. And to say,
Speaker 2: how does this apply to like modern day China? Right,
Speaker 2: it seems like the kind of prompt that a student
Speaker 2: might be asked in a class about China or a
Speaker 2: class about pukou or whatever else. Right, And like, you know,
Speaker 2: first of all, if you ask chat ChiPT to cheat
Speaker 2: for you, it doesn't push back at all, Right, and
Speaker 2: you can say things, can you like, please remove any
Speaker 2: traces of this is GPT, you know, please make the
Speaker 2: essay a little reugh around the margin, but have one
Speaker 2: or two good points of insight.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: At one point in the version I eventually ended up with, Right,
Speaker 2: it's like, you know, my Chinese friend, so it made
Speaker 2: up a fake Chinese friend to testify to a point
Speaker 2: that it was making, and I have no idea da
Speaker 2: quite how detectable this would be. But you know, but
Speaker 2: the students can kind of take that as an intermediate
Speaker 2: point and then remove further traces of it. But anyway,
Speaker 2: it's it's very hard to have an assignment now that
Speaker 2: you can confidently predict was not written by chat GPD,
Speaker 2: any type of written homework assignment that's not kind of
Speaker 2: done with active supervision, and the article is very gloomy.
Speaker 2: A lot of students are pretty open about their cheating
Speaker 2: and say, hey, this is great, right now, I can
Speaker 2: save a lot of time. Right. A lot of professors
Speaker 2: are very despairing of it. Right, you know, you were
Speaker 2: in an era where because it's hard to prove, like
Speaker 2: you might be ninety percent sure that a student cheated,
Speaker 2: but ninety percent is probably not good enough to flunk
Speaker 2: similar to kick them out of college or things like that.
Speaker 2: But like I will say to me, it seems like
Speaker 2: there are some methods that you could use to prevent this,
Speaker 2: which require more work. So you know, you know, when
Speaker 2: I went, I took my junior year abroad at one
Speaker 2: school economics in the UKSES, and you just take one
Speaker 2: big exam at the end of the year and that's
Speaker 2: your whole grand and that's in person. Back then, we
Speaker 2: use notebooks. I'm sure you can use you know, iPads
Speaker 2: or something like that now, right, but that's quite hard
Speaker 2: to cheat. If you want. Students have the internet. You
Speaker 2: could say you can have the Internet, but we're monitoring
Speaker 2: you're internet access, right and so, like if you use chatchipt,
Speaker 2: we will know, right. Or you can say, okay, well
Speaker 2: we're going to have you submit a paper and I'm
Speaker 2: going to have a fifteen minute conversation with you about
Speaker 2: the paper. I imagine it'd be hard to fake your
Speaker 2: way through even like five or ten minutes if you
Speaker 2: really didn't know the subject matter at all, if you're
Speaker 2: being quizzed about your own paper, right and so, But
Speaker 2: professors don't seem to want to do it in anyway.
Speaker 2: What are your thoughts here, Maria, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well I have I have a number of thoughts. First
Speaker 1: of all, I mean, obviously you know students have been
Speaker 1: cheating for a long time, and that you were saying
Speaker 1: ninety percent isn't enough. And I will actually go further
Speaker 1: and say one hundred percent isn't enough to fail someone
Speaker 1: off times. So when I was when I was teaching
Speaker 1: back in my grad school days, I had a student
Speaker 1: hand in a paper that just looked suspicious, and it
Speaker 1: was a word document that was kind of scrolling down
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, my, you know, the cursor
Speaker 1: changes to kind of a you know, the way that
Speaker 1: the cursor changes when there's a hyperlink. And so he
Speaker 1: had copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia, and he had
Speaker 1: removed the visual hyperlink, but he hadn't actually removed the hyperlink,
Speaker 1: so I could actually click on the text to get
Speaker 1: to the Wikipedia article. And I was like, wow, right,
Speaker 1: like that that is uh, that is like the people
Speaker 1: who these days hand in essays that start with as
Speaker 1: an ai I And I brought this, you know, to
Speaker 1: the department and said, you know this, this kid cheated.
Speaker 1: I want to fail him. And they didn't let me
Speaker 1: because they said that, you know, there were parent issues
Speaker 1: and all these things. And I was allowed to give
Speaker 1: him a D minus, but I could not give him
Speaker 1: an F because that's not how Columbia did things. And
Speaker 1: it was very disparaiting to me. Right. It was one
Speaker 1: of the things that one of the reasons there were
Speaker 1: lots of reasons I didn't want to go into academia,
Speaker 1: but I was like, fuck this, right, like, you need
Speaker 1: to have consequences for cheating, so that it has happened
Speaker 1: for a long time and it's obviously only getting worse.
Speaker 1: But I completely agree with you, Nate, that you should
Speaker 1: change in response to this, how you grade and how
Speaker 1: you create assignments. When I went even kind of as
Speaker 1: an undergrad, we had so many in class exams right
Speaker 1: where you had to write essays in class. And then
Speaker 1: when I was a grad student, we had oral exams
Speaker 1: where you know, as part of your degree you have
Speaker 1: to pass orals where you are interviews. It's very stressful
Speaker 1: for a lot of people. Right. There are people who
Speaker 1: ask you questions. When you defend your dissertation. You have
Speaker 1: an entire committee, right who's pepper you with questions about
Speaker 1: your work and about your research. And if you're not
Speaker 1: the one who knows the data and who knows what
Speaker 1: you did, then you're going to get screwed, right, You're
Speaker 1: not going to pass. And people have failed, by the way,
Speaker 1: different dissertation defenses. People have failed oral exams. People you know,
Speaker 1: fail these types of assessments all the time, and so
Speaker 1: I think what we need if we want to actually
Speaker 1: first of all, like what's the point of higher education?
Speaker 1: I would say, you know, to create critical thinkers and
Speaker 1: people who actually are educated human beings and have well
Speaker 1: rounded who know about you know, history and all of
Speaker 1: these different things. How do you make sure that they're
Speaker 1: actually learning what? You change the You change the way
Speaker 1: that you that you have your class. You change the
Speaker 1: incentives right so that they can't cheat their way through it,
Speaker 1: because it's not going to go away. It's only going
Speaker 1: to get worse. And so you can't just pretend that
Speaker 1: it doesn't happen. And you can't rely on cheating detection
Speaker 1: software because it doesn't matter anyway. Instead, you need to
Speaker 1: kind of create an environment where your students learn and
Speaker 1: I would say, you know, are motivated to learn, right,
Speaker 1: So make it worth their while, like make them understand
Speaker 1: why this is important. One of the students, Nay, in
Speaker 1: that New York magpiece. He first he got into Harvard,
Speaker 1: then he said they rescinded his admission and he ended
Speaker 1: up transferring to Columbia and was kicked out within a
Speaker 1: year because he cheated on everything and he openly admitted
Speaker 1: it and created cheating software and said, well, I don't care, Like,
Speaker 1: I don't care about actually any of this. The only
Speaker 1: reason I want to go to a good school is
Speaker 1: to meet my future spouse and co founder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I mean students learn from well, anyone learns from,
Speaker 2: like to Terrence, right that if you do see a
Speaker 2: student who was kicked out of college for cheating, then
Speaker 2: as going to have a much bigger deterrent effect. Right,
Speaker 2: But like, yeah, look, I mean I was going to say,
Speaker 2: you know, is the purpose of higher education really learning?
Speaker 2: Because you can obviously take a much more cynical approach, right,
Speaker 2: which is that it's a factory to produce degrees and
Speaker 2: to kind of, you know, make a lot of money
Speaker 2: running these very expensive institutions that have now very large
Speaker 2: non academic stabs. A lot of the time that the
Speaker 2: kids are coddle, that there is a ton of great inflation,
Speaker 2: that during the pandemic, that colleges were so concerned about
Speaker 2: angering highly neurotic moms and dads and maybe professors to
Speaker 2: some extent, right, and so they're totally undermining the educational experience, right,
Speaker 2: But like, it doesn't stop the factory from like churning
Speaker 2: out degrees, even if classes are easier and easier to gain,
Speaker 2: and so, yeah, I don't know. I also think that
Speaker 2: like you wind up with students in a kind of
Speaker 2: prisoner's dilemma type situation where it's a really pretty rational
Speaker 2: to cheat if everyone else is cheating and it can't
Speaker 2: really be detected. And by the way, like I think that,
Speaker 2: you know, when I write essays for Silver Bulletin, then
Speaker 2: I ask chech GPT question, right, I will run my
Speaker 2: copy through j just P and say do you correct
Speaker 2: any typos or errors? Right? And things like that. Right,
Speaker 2: Sometimes it all flag errors that are fake because I
Speaker 2: can't believe how dumb things are. It's like we can't
Speaker 2: really have one hundred and third percent tariff on China, right.
Speaker 2: People might take that exaggeration seriously, Nate, So you have
Speaker 2: to remove that from your estley. I'm like, no, things
Speaker 2: are really that dumb. But like so and working with
Speaker 2: AI is important. I mean, it's kind of intrude to
Speaker 2: I mean, I'll stay that like interpersonal skills become more
Speaker 2: important in a world where CHECHPD do is kind of
Speaker 2: like the cognitive tasks easier. It's probably more about sales, right,
Speaker 2: who are you going to hire to be the nice
Speaker 2: person to brought you the services that you could probably
Speaker 2: do yourself with chet GPT, your group assignments and things.
Speaker 2: People feel charmed by humans. So but yeah, I think
Speaker 2: colleges are on the way to being less relevant and
Speaker 2: that they seem not to have particularly much urgency for
Speaker 2: This is kind of lame. But like I said, if
Speaker 2: you were a student, would you use chet cheapet if
Speaker 2: you Let's say you let me set this up for you. Right,
Speaker 2: Let's say you know for a fact that eighty percent
Speaker 2: of the students in your class are using chat cheapt.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to make a sympathetic set of facts. Right,
Speaker 2: Let's say you don't think the class is well taught,
Speaker 2: and so you don't think you're really getting that much
Speaker 2: out of it. Let's even say that you kind of
Speaker 2: done half the reading and so you're kind of using
Speaker 2: cheapt chechpeeding way. It's like clearly over the line, but
Speaker 2: you're adding some original inputs and insight yourself. But it
Speaker 2: goes against the nominal recommendations of the professor. Would you
Speaker 2: cheat in that circumstance or use chec ChiPT or not?
Speaker 1: I would like to think no, because I never I
Speaker 1: was someone who could have always took that pretty seriously.
Speaker 1: And for me, like my incentives were like most of
Speaker 1: my classes I was really interested in, Like I wanted
Speaker 1: to learn, right, Like I went to a school that
Speaker 1: I thought would teach me things that I realized. You know,
Speaker 1: I sound like a very you know, uh do ie
Speaker 1: bushy tailed student, but like to me, that was that
Speaker 1: was the whole point. Like I wanted to read these books.
Speaker 1: I want to think through you know, I wanted to
Speaker 1: be kind of a better, you know, a better person,
Speaker 1: someone who who has that knowledge, you know. I wanted
Speaker 1: to kind of have it in my head, like if
Speaker 1: you're on a desert island right with no CHATPT and
Speaker 1: you just have kind of the stuff that's in your head.
Speaker 1: I wanted to kind of have good things in there.
Speaker 1: And so I never I mean I never even like
Speaker 1: gray Zone cheated when I was in college, Like I
Speaker 1: didn't collaborate on assignments. I didn't do anything like that.
Speaker 1: That said, like I never told on anyone either, right,
Speaker 1: Like I was not someone who would be like Nate
Speaker 1: use chat GPT, right, Like, if you want to use
Speaker 1: chat rept, fine, but even if everyone was using it,
Speaker 1: like I I think I wouldn't I wouldn't feel right
Speaker 1: about myself if the teacher actually said, do not use
Speaker 1: chat GPT. And like I said, for most of the
Speaker 1: classes I took, a huge chunk of the grade was
Speaker 1: in class, in class, exams and assignments, and so that
Speaker 1: was something where you know, chat GPT wouldn't be helpful.
Speaker 1: But I also I wanted to be a writer, Nate, like,
Speaker 1: I wanted to learn how to write well, and I
Speaker 1: wanted one of the reasons that I wanted to go
Speaker 1: to Harvard was to study with very specific writers. I
Speaker 1: wanted their feedback on my writing. It would just completely
Speaker 1: defeat the purpose, right if I took a fiction writing
Speaker 1: seminar and had chat GPT write my short story, Like,
Speaker 1: what am I even doing? Well?
Speaker 2: What if you sound stupid? What if it's a let's
Speaker 2: say that you're taking a physics class and it's part
Speaker 2: of a requirement for some hard sciences, right, and the
Speaker 2: professor is unintelligible and boring, and these assignments are unnecessarily
Speaker 2: hard for students who are not going into the science concentration. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I think that I can see using chat
Speaker 1: GPT to help me explain to help explain stuff, right,
Speaker 1: use other aids outside of class to try to get
Speaker 1: to try to get oriented and try to figure it out.
Speaker 1: But I would still, I think, do my own final
Speaker 1: assignment in the end, like there was one class. This
Speaker 1: is one of my biggest regrets, and so I don't
Speaker 1: want students to have regrets like this. One of my
Speaker 1: biggest regrets from undergrad was I took this course AX ten,
Speaker 1: which was you know, your introductory economics class my senior year,
Speaker 1: because I needed it as a requirement, and I took
Speaker 1: a pass fail because I could write and I didn't.
Speaker 1: At that point, I thought that I didn't really care
Speaker 1: about economics, want to know any of this. And it
Speaker 1: was really early in the morning. I think it was
Speaker 1: like at nine am or something, you know, a time
Speaker 1: that was just ungodly for me even today, but as
Speaker 1: a college student like, no, no way, And so I
Speaker 1: ended up skipping a ton of lectures and almost fail
Speaker 1: the class. I really regret that because, first of all,
Speaker 1: the class was taught by legendary professor, and the speakers
Speaker 1: we had in that class were insane, right, We had
Speaker 1: like secretaries of State, We had the things that I
Speaker 1: missed right now, when I look at our syllabus, I'm like,
Speaker 1: what an idiot?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I wish I could go back in time and actually
Speaker 1: learn this information. So the one time where like I
Speaker 1: obviously wasn't cheating or using chat gibta, I almost failed,
Speaker 1: for God's sake, the one time I tried to like
Speaker 1: glide through a class because I didn't think it was
Speaker 1: irrelevant or interesting. I really really regret it because I
Speaker 1: realized now just how relevant and interesting it was and
Speaker 1: how much I missed. So kind of looking back at
Speaker 1: college me, I want to shake myself and say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, take advantage of this. There is not going
Speaker 1: to be another time where you get like an hour
Speaker 1: one on one with Larry Summers to ask him quite
Speaker 1: about the economy.
Speaker 2: You know. I asked my Twitter followers did they cheat
Speaker 2: even a little tiny bit in college? And it was
Speaker 2: almost exactly fifty fifty yes and no, which means on
Speaker 2: the show, if you are avowing Maria never to have
Speaker 2: even a tiny bit cheated, does that imply that I
Speaker 2: therefore did cheat.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. I wouldn't say that. I would say that
Speaker 1: you probably did not.
Speaker 2: I think I did. I think this counts. So I
Speaker 2: was in an econometrics class, and ironically, econometrics is like
Speaker 2: actually pretty relevant to my day to day work now, right,
Speaker 2: But the class was taught terribly. The professor was a
Speaker 2: good scholar who was very disengaged in University of Chicago
Speaker 2: was maybe more tolerant of that than they should have been, right,
Speaker 2: and you know, my very good friend, I mean, I would,
Speaker 2: you know, ask to copy off a couple of those
Speaker 2: problem sets with his mission sometimes? Right, that's cheating, isn't it,
Speaker 2: I think, Solia, Yeah, it's funny because like if you're
Speaker 2: doing the homework together, it's probably not. But like I
Speaker 2: think it's cheating. And I don't regret it because the
Speaker 2: class sucked and and still most of the grades based on
Speaker 2: on the end of the year, right you still, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, so if I fucked myself over, then that's fine,
Speaker 2: But I don't I think that was a rational decision.
Speaker 1: You know what, now that you say that, I realized
Speaker 1: that I did cheat.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: If in school, so when I was in eighth grade,
Speaker 1: I had this science teacher who liked to basically we
Speaker 1: had our science curriculum and then he also taught birds
Speaker 1: and stars, so basically we would get pop quizzes all
Speaker 1: the time where he would play bird calls and we'd
Speaker 1: have to say what bird it was. However, as part
Speaker 1: of the bird stuff, he would give us these basically
Speaker 1: you know, like coloring book sketches of birds, and we
Speaker 1: had color them in for homework and we were graded
Speaker 1: on how well we colored them in. And I was like,
Speaker 1: this is bullshit. I have zero artistic ability, like I
Speaker 1: hate you know, I can't draw, stick figure, I can't color.
Speaker 1: I was like, this has nothing to do with science, right,
Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with what I'm learning. This
Speaker 1: is insane. And my sister is a beautiful artist. So
Speaker 1: she actually, first of all, I had she had taken
Speaker 1: the class, you know, six years before I did, so
Speaker 1: she gave me her birds to like help me figure
Speaker 1: out how to how to color them in, and then
Speaker 1: when she had time, she would color them for me.
Speaker 1: And then I had another friend who was who loved drawing,
Speaker 1: and she would color my birds for me. And I
Speaker 1: hardly ever did my bird coloring in myself because I
Speaker 1: just thought it was the.
Speaker 2: Most too cheaters mister business here.
Speaker 1: So now that you now that I think about it,
Speaker 1: that was that was definitely problem not above board, but
Speaker 1: it was just because I made the decision that this
Speaker 1: was an incredibly bad use of my time. And I
Speaker 1: stand by that just like thank you. I have no regrets.
Speaker 1: I do not care that I don't know how to
Speaker 1: color in a downy woodpecker or whatever. It was toughted mouse.
Speaker 2: And we'll be right back after this break. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's an argument against assigned homework in general, and do
Speaker 2: the readings you can participate in class right and or
Speaker 2: past your final at the end of the year. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm actually I'm actually very sympathetic to the no
Speaker 1: homework type of thing because you know, if you, I
Speaker 1: think homework often incentivizes cheating, right when people feel like
Speaker 1: like the homework assignment is stupid or dumb, or you
Speaker 1: have too much of it, like there the incentives for
Speaker 1: homework are not often the correct incentives. And when you
Speaker 1: have those exams so I had, I took a lot
Speaker 1: of seminars where class participation was a huge part in it, right,
Speaker 1: and if you are one of the people who did
Speaker 1: not do the reading that week, it becomes very clear
Speaker 1: pretty or pretty soon in the discussion that, like you,
Speaker 1: you are not adding much value and that like this
Speaker 1: was just this is a week that you were mentally
Speaker 1: not there. And if the purpose of learning is to
Speaker 1: create individuals who have deeper knowledge, critical thinking abilities, kind
Speaker 1: of the ability to synthesize information, to analyze information, the
Speaker 1: types of skills that we want right in our citizens,
Speaker 1: I would hope then homework assignments are much worse at
Speaker 1: assessing those than your ability to kind of have a
Speaker 1: class discussion, your ability to kind of think through things
Speaker 1: and reason through things. So I think that we need
Speaker 1: to figure out how do you kind of create an
Speaker 1: education system that incentivizes the sorts of thinking and behaviors
Speaker 1: that you want your students to emerge with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I think you know maybe as solicials, you
Speaker 2: actually need more actual classroom hours. Right. I had a
Speaker 2: friend who used to work at Amazon, and the culture
Speaker 2: there is that if there's a meeting where there's a
Speaker 2: briefing to read, right, they assume that you did not
Speaker 2: take the time out to read that briefing, right, So like,
Speaker 2: take twelve minutes now and read this briefing and then
Speaker 2: we'll talk about it, right, And it's like kind of
Speaker 2: a part of the meeting, you know, obviously, like I'm
Speaker 2: a big fan of reading in general, but maybe it
Speaker 2: doesn't have to be as Zidak to like prove that
Speaker 2: you read this, Like no, I mean, look, can you
Speaker 2: hold intelligent discussion in class? And then I don't know.
Speaker 2: People always talk about the EDU cases of students who
Speaker 2: are introverted or neurodiversient or English is a second language,
Speaker 2: and yeah, it sucks, but life isn't always fairer, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean? And if colleges become less effective
Speaker 2: at differentiating which students were more effective and when we're
Speaker 2: on it, I mean, you know, then the whole signal
Speaker 2: becomes less valuable and college degrees become worth less, particularly
Speaker 2: the most elite degrees. Right, all of a sudden's just
Speaker 2: now basically like a signal that four years ago you
Speaker 2: were considered a talented student by an emissions committee. Right, yep,
Speaker 2: I completely agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think that this is a very very urgent question
Speaker 1: and one that has huge implications for the future of
Speaker 1: our society, right, because what kind of adults are we
Speaker 1: creating with? What kinds of skills, what kinds of ability,
Speaker 1: what kinds of actual background and knowledge? I think these
Speaker 1: are really important questions we do not want to be
Speaker 1: creating a functionally illiterate society, which is what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you don't actually do any learning
Speaker 1: and instead outsource everything all the time and using.
Speaker 2: Chat, GPT or other LM's other AI tools, well, is
Speaker 2: actually a pretty important life skill. I can imagine some
Speaker 2: assignments where and say yes, we not only you know, allow,
Speaker 2: but maybe encourage you for this particular assignment to do
Speaker 2: this right. And so I mean the other irony I
Speaker 2: think this is becoming true and more and more domains
Speaker 2: evolving AI is that like, if you are pretty smart,
Speaker 2: then your productivity is enhanced by the AI, Whereas if
Speaker 2: you don't know what you're doing then and maybe you
Speaker 2: can kind of fake your way through it up to
Speaker 2: a point, but you may be more fooled by the hallucinations,
Speaker 2: You may be susceptible to misinformation, you may just not
Speaker 2: have any retention for the things that you're having it
Speaker 2: do right. And so, like, you know, if I were
Speaker 2: using chat schipt to write a paper or I could
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think I can write better than
Speaker 2: chet chip Bet by a long shot still, but like,
Speaker 2: but I could figure out ways if I were allowed
Speaker 2: to that to make my work to summarize long reading
Speaker 2: like that seems like a potentially legitimate use for a student. Right,
Speaker 2: here's this very long reading that you have to pay
Speaker 2: way too much for the fucking textbook anyway, Right, can
Speaker 2: you extract the important parts from this? And guess what
Speaker 2: you can do if you're Chinese, Nat, and now you
Speaker 2: can have it translate to Chinese. Right, you can up
Speaker 2: and down the world level of complexity. Right, you can
Speaker 2: say this point might seem obvious to you. Can you
Speaker 2: explain this point another way? Right? So, like, you know,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of ways that llm's II tools
Speaker 2: could be quite helpful for the educational process. But I
Speaker 2: just think academia is moving too slow. You know, the
Speaker 2: opportunity costs of four years in college given how the
Speaker 2: world is changing. I mean, there's a cohort of students
Speaker 2: for which it might not be the right decision.
Speaker 1: I completely agree with that, and I do think that
Speaker 1: academia needs to just wake up to what's happening and
Speaker 1: figure out how to stay relevant. Risky Business is hosted
Speaker 1: by me Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2: And by me Nate Silver. The show is a co
Speaker 2: production of Pushkin Industries, and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
Speaker 2: by Isabelle Carter. Our associate producer is Sonya Gerwitz. Sally
Speaker 2: Helm is our editor, and our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.
Speaker 2: Mixing by Sarah Bruger.
Speaker 1: If you like the show, please rate and review us
Speaker 1: to other people can find us too. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for tuning in.