University students are using Anthropic's Claude AI assistant for a variety of academic tasks. These include summarizing research papers, brainstorming and outlining essays, generating creative content like poems and scripts, practicing different languages, and getting help with coding assignments. The report highlights Claude's strengths in following instructions, maintaining context in longer conversations, and generating creative text, making it a useful tool for students across various disciplines. Students also appreciate its ability to provide helpful explanations and different perspectives on their work. While still under development, Claude shows promise as a valuable learning aid for higher education.
University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos argues against the rising tide of intellectual cowardice on college campuses. He believes universities should be havens for difficult conversations and the pursuit of truth, even when uncomfortable or unpopular. Alivisatos contends that avoiding controversial topics or shielding students from challenging viewpoints hinders their intellectual growth and their preparation for a complex world. He champions the Chicago Principles, which emphasize free expression and open discourse, as a crucial foundation for genuine learning and progress. Ultimately, Alivisatos calls for universities to actively cultivate intellectual courage, enabling students to grapple with diverse perspectives and form their own informed opinions.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the sentiment of the article, praising the university president's stance against intellectual cowardice. Several commenters highlighted the increasing pressure on universities to avoid controversial topics, particularly those related to race, gender, and politics. Some shared anecdotes of self-censorship within academia and the broader societal trend of avoiding difficult conversations. A few questioned the practicality of the president's idealism, wondering how such principles could be applied in the real world given the complexities of university governance and the potential for backlash. The most compelling comments centered around the importance of free speech on campuses, the detrimental effects of chilling discourse, and the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas for the sake of intellectual growth. While there wasn't overt disagreement with the article's premise, some commenters offered a pragmatic counterpoint, suggesting that strategic silence could sometimes be necessary for survival in certain environments.
The average college student today is increasingly disengaged and apathetic, prioritizing social life and career prospects over genuine intellectual curiosity. They view college primarily as a stepping stone to a high-paying job, often choosing majors based on perceived earning potential rather than personal interest. This instrumental approach to education leads to a decline in critical thinking, a superficial understanding of complex topics, and a reluctance to engage in challenging discussions. This trend is further exacerbated by a culture of safetyism and emotional fragility, where students avoid potentially offensive or uncomfortable ideas, hindering intellectual exploration and the development of robust reasoning skills.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the linked article, which argues that the average college student is less academically prepared and engaged than in the past. Several commenters pointed to administrative bloat and the increasing focus on non-academic amenities as contributing factors to declining academic rigor. Some discussed the rising cost of college relative to its perceived value, and how that impacts student motivation. A few argued that the article overgeneralizes and that high-achieving students still exist, but are overshadowed by the growing number of students who are less focused on academics. The pressure on universities to increase enrollment, regardless of academic preparedness, was also cited as a driving force behind the described decline. Finally, several users questioned the validity of the author's data and methodology, highlighting the difficulty in defining and measuring "average" student performance across different institutions and time periods.
Creating accessible open textbooks, especially in math-heavy fields, is challenging due to the complexity of mathematical notation. While LaTeX is commonly used, its accessibility features are limited, particularly for screen reader users. Converting LaTeX to accessible formats like HTML requires significant manual effort and often compromises semantic meaning. The author explores MathML as a potential solution, highlighting its accessibility advantages and integration possibilities with HTML. However, MathML also presents challenges including limited browser support and authoring difficulties. Ultimately, creating truly accessible math content necessitates a shift towards semantic encoding and tools that prioritize accessibility from the outset, rather than relying on post-hoc conversions.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges and potential solutions for creating accessible open textbooks, particularly in math-heavy fields. Commenters highlighted the complexity of converting LaTeX, a common tool for math typesetting, into accessible formats. Some suggested focusing on HTML-first authoring, using tools like MathJax and Pandoc, or exploring MathML. The need for semantic tagging and robust tooling for image descriptions also emerged as key themes. Several users pointed to specific projects and resources like PreTeXt, which aims to facilitate accessible textbook creation. Concerns about funding and institutional support for these initiatives were also raised, as was the question of whether creating truly accessible math content requires a fundamental shift away from current publishing workflows.
The original poster (OP) is struggling with returning to school for a Master's degree in Computer Science after several years in industry. They find the theoretical focus challenging compared to the practical, problem-solving nature of their work experience. Specifically, they're having difficulty connecting theoretical concepts to real-world applications and are questioning the value of the program. They feel their practical skills are atrophying and are concerned about falling behind in the fast-paced tech world. Despite acknowledging the long-term benefits of a Master's degree, the OP is experiencing a disconnect between their current academic pursuits and their career goals, leading them to seek advice and support from the Hacker News community.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Difficulties with Going Back to School" post offer a range of perspectives on the challenges of returning to education. Several commenters emphasize the difficulty of balancing school with existing work and family commitments, highlighting the significant time management skills required. Financial burdens, including tuition costs and the potential loss of income, are also frequently mentioned. Some users discuss the psychological hurdles, such as imposter syndrome and the fear of failure, particularly when returning after a long absence. A few commenters offer practical advice, suggesting part-time programs, online learning options, and utilizing available support resources. Others share personal anecdotes of successful returns to education, providing encouragement and demonstrating that these challenges can be overcome. The overall sentiment is empathetic and supportive, acknowledging the significant commitment involved in going back to school.
Istanbul University revoked Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu's degree, claiming irregularities in his initial university diploma that he used to enroll. This decision could bar Imamoglu, a prominent rival of President Erdogan and potential presidential candidate, from running for office. The mayor denounced the move as politically motivated and vowed to appeal.
Hacker News commenters largely see the annulment of Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu's university degree as a politically motivated move by President Erdoğan to eliminate a strong rival. Several highlight the apparent absurdity of the timing and the specific charge, questioning the legitimacy of the process. Some draw parallels to other authoritarian regimes and express concern about the erosion of democratic norms in Turkey. A few commenters offer alternative interpretations, suggesting the situation might be more nuanced or that İmamoğlu may have genuinely committed an infraction, though these views are in the minority. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is one of skepticism towards the official narrative and concern for the future of Turkish democracy.
A Brown University undergraduate, Noah Solomon, disproved a long-standing conjecture in data science known as the "conjecture of Kahan." This conjecture, which had puzzled researchers for 40 years, stated that certain algorithms used for floating-point computations could only produce a limited number of outputs. Solomon developed a novel geometric approach to the problem, discovering a counterexample that demonstrates these algorithms can actually produce infinitely many outputs under specific conditions. His work has significant implications for numerical analysis and computer science, as it clarifies the behavior of these fundamental algorithms and opens new avenues for research into improving their accuracy and reliability.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed excitement and praise for the undergraduate student's achievement. Several questioned the "40-year-old conjecture" framing, pointing out that the problem, while known, wasn't a major focus of active research. Some highlighted the importance of the mentor's role and the collaborative nature of research. Others delved into the technical details, discussing the specific implications of the findings for dimensionality reduction techniques like PCA and the difference between theoretical and practical significance in this context. A few commenters also noted the unusual amount of media attention for this type of result, speculating about the reasons behind it. A recurring theme was the refreshing nature of seeing an undergraduate making such a contribution.
The University of Chicago's physical footprint has dramatically expanded over its 135-year history, transforming from a single block in Hyde Park to a sprawling institution owning over 800 properties across multiple neighborhoods and even other states. This growth, visualized through interactive maps, reveals distinct phases of acquisition, including the early concentration around the main campus, mid-century expansion southward spurred by urban renewal programs, and more recent acquisitions in Woodlawn and further afield. The visualization highlights not just the sheer scale of UChicago's land holdings but also the complex relationship between the university's growth and the surrounding community.
Hacker News users discussed the University of Chicago's expansion, primarily focusing on its impact on the surrounding community. Several commenters criticized the university's role in gentrification and displacement of long-term residents, citing its acquisition of property and influence on rising housing costs. Some debated the university's responsibility for providing affordable housing and supporting local businesses. A few commenters highlighted the positive aspects of the university's presence, such as increased safety and economic development. The visualization itself was praised for its clarity and detail, enabling viewers to easily grasp the scale of the university's growth over time. A recurring theme was the complex relationship between urban universities and their host communities, with commenters acknowledging both benefits and drawbacks of the university's expansion.
The blog post "Solving SICP" details the author's experience working through the challenging textbook Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP). They emphasize the importance of perseverance and a deep engagement with the material, advocating against rushing through exercises or relying solely on online solutions. The author highlights the book's effectiveness in teaching fundamental computer science concepts through Scheme, and shares their personal approach of rewriting code multiple times and focusing on understanding the underlying principles rather than just achieving a working solution. Ultimately, they advocate for a deliberate and reflective learning process to truly grasp the profound insights SICP offers.
HN users discuss the blog post about working through SICP. Several commenters praise the book's impact on their thinking, even if they don't regularly use Scheme. Some suggest revisiting it after gaining more programming experience, noting a deeper appreciation for the concepts on subsequent readings. A few discuss the value of SICP's exercises in developing problem-solving skills, and the importance of actually working through them rather than just reading. One commenter highlights the significance of the book's metacircular evaluator chapter. Others debate the practicality of Scheme and the relevance of SICP's mathematical focus for modern programming, with some suggesting alternative learning resources.
Facing a terminal cancer diagnosis, Stanford professor Bryant Lin refused to abandon his students. Instead, he integrated his experience with esophageal cancer into his final course, "Living With Cancer," offering a uniquely personal and real-time perspective on the disease. He openly shared his treatment journey, physical struggles, and emotional reflections, providing students with invaluable insights into the medical, social, and ethical dimensions of cancer. Lin's dedication to teaching and his willingness to be vulnerable transformed his classroom into a space of shared humanity and learning, inspiring students even as he confronted his own mortality.
HN commenters discuss the Stanford professor's decision to teach a class about his cancer journey. Several praise his bravery and openness, viewing it as a powerful way to educate students and destigmatize illness. Some question the emotional toll on both the professor and the students, wondering about the appropriateness of such a personal subject in an academic setting. Others express skepticism about the framing of the NYT piece, suggesting it's overly sentimentalized. A few commenters also share their own experiences with cancer and teaching, drawing parallels to the professor's situation. The potential for triggering students facing similar challenges is also brought up, along with concerns about the blurring of lines between professional and personal life.
While college sticker prices have risen dramatically, the net cost of attending college has actually been decreasing for most students. This is due to the significant increase in grant aid and tax benefits, which offset the rising tuition costs. For lower-income students, the net price is often dramatically lower than the advertised sticker price. Although concerns about student loan debt are valid, the article argues that the real cost of a college degree, when considering financial aid, is more affordable than perceived, and continues to decline.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that the net cost of college has decreased thanks to increased financial aid, but several point out that this primarily benefits lower-income students. Some argue that the focus should be on reducing the sticker price for everyone, as the current system creates confusion and deters potential applicants. Others discuss the administrative bloat contributing to high tuition costs, and the lack of transparency in pricing. One commenter suggests that the value proposition of a college degree is diminishing due to alternative credentialing and the rising cost relative to potential earnings. Several people share personal anecdotes about navigating the complex financial aid process.
Facing significant research funding cuts due to the expiration of Trump-era programs, the University of Pennsylvania plans to reduce the size of its incoming graduate student classes. The cuts, impacting various departments like biology and physics, will necessitate rescinding some offers of admission already extended to prospective students. While Penn is exploring alternative funding sources and prioritizing need-based financial aid, the overall impact on graduate programs remains uncertain. The university intends to offer impacted prospective students deferred admission and support in finding alternative placements.
Hacker News users discussed the potential ramifications of Penn's graduate admissions cuts, with some expressing concern about the impact on the quality of education and research. Several commenters questioned the university's financial priorities, suggesting that administrative bloat and excessive spending in other areas contributed to the need for cuts in research funding. Others debated the role of government funding in academia and the potential for increased reliance on corporate partnerships. A few commenters speculated about the specific departments most likely to be affected, with some suggesting that humanities programs might be disproportionately targeted. The overall sentiment was one of apprehension about the future of graduate education at Penn and the broader implications for academic research.
The blog post "Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud" argues that the current academic system, particularly in humanities, incentivizes meaningless, formulaic writing that adheres to rigid stylistic and theoretical frameworks rather than genuine intellectual exploration. The author encourages students to subvert this system by embracing "blatant academic fraud"—not plagiarism or fabrication, but rather strategically utilizing sophisticated language and fashionable theories to create impressive-sounding yet ultimately hollow work. This act of performative scholarship is presented as a form of protest, exposing the absurdity of a system that values appearance over substance and rewards conformity over original thought. The author believes this "fraud" will force the academy to confront its own superficiality and hopefully lead to meaningful reform.
Hacker News users generally agree with the author's premise that the current academic publishing system is broken and incentivizes bad research practices. Many commenters share anecdotes of questionable research practices they've witnessed, including pressure to produce positive results, manipulating data, and salami slicing publications. Some highlight the perverse incentives created by the "publish or perish" environment, arguing that it pushes researchers towards quantity over quality. Several commenters discuss the potential benefits of open science practices and pre-registration as ways to improve transparency and rigor. There is also a thread discussing the role of reviewers and editors in perpetuating these problems, suggesting they often lack the time or expertise to thoroughly evaluate submissions. A few dissenting voices argue that while problems exist, blatant fraud is rare and the author's tone is overly cynical.
Mathematicians and married couple, George Willis and Monica Nevins, have solved a long-standing problem in group theory concerning just-infinite groups. After two decades of collaborative effort, they proved that such groups, which are infinite but become finite when any element is removed, always arise from a specific type of construction related to branch groups. This confirms a conjecture formulated in the 1990s and deepens our understanding of the structure of infinite groups. Their proof, praised for its elegance and clarity, relies on a clever simplification of the problem and represents a significant advancement in the field.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed awe and appreciation for the mathematicians' dedication and the elegance of the solution. Several highlighted the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of such partnerships in research. Some discussed the challenge of explaining complex mathematical concepts to a lay audience, while others pondered the practical applications of this seemingly abstract work. A few commenters with mathematical backgrounds offered deeper insights into the proof and its implications, pointing out the use of representation theory and the significance of classifying groups. One compelling comment mentioned the personal connection between Geoff Robinson and the commenter's advisor, offering a glimpse into the human side of the mathematical community. Another interesting comment thread explored the role of intuition and persistence in mathematical discovery, highlighting the "aha" moment described in the article.
Murat Buffalo reflects on his fulfilling five years at MIT CSAIL, expressing gratitude for the exceptional research environment and collaborations. He highlights the freedom to explore diverse research areas, from theoretical foundations to real-world applications in areas like climate change and healthcare. Buffalo acknowledges the supportive community, emphasizing the valuable mentorship he received and the inspiring colleagues he worked alongside. Though bittersweet to leave, he's excited for the next chapter and carries the positive impact of his MIT experience forward.
Hacker News users discussing Murat Buffalo's blog post about his time at MIT generally express sympathy and understanding of his experiences. Several commenters share similar stories of feeling overwhelmed, isolated, and struggling with mental health in demanding academic environments. Some question the value of relentlessly pursuing prestige, highlighting the importance of finding a balance between ambition and well-being. Others offer practical advice, suggesting that seeking help and focusing on intrinsic motivation rather than external validation can lead to a more fulfilling experience. A few commenters criticize the blog post for being overly negative and potentially discouraging to prospective students, while others defend Buffalo's right to share his personal perspective. The overall sentiment leans towards acknowledging the pressures of elite institutions and advocating for a more supportive and humane approach to education.
PhD enrollment is declining globally, driven by several factors. The demanding nature of doctoral programs, coupled with often-meager stipends and uncertain career prospects outside academia, is deterring potential applicants. Many are opting for higher-paying jobs in industry directly after their master's degrees. Additionally, concerns about work-life balance, mental health, and the increasing pressure to publish are contributing to this trend. While some fields, like engineering and computer science, remain attractive due to industry demand, the overall appeal of doctoral studies is diminishing as alternative career paths become more appealing.
Hacker News users discuss potential reasons for the PhD decline, citing poor academic job prospects, low pay compared to industry, and lengthy, often stressful, programs. Some argue that a PhD is only worthwhile for those truly passionate about research, while others suggest the value of a PhD depends heavily on the field. Several commenters point out that industry increasingly values specialized skills acquired through shorter, more focused programs, and the financial burden of a PhD is a major deterrent. Some suggest the "lustre" hasn't faded for all PhDs, with fields like computer science remaining attractive. Others propose alternative paths like industry-sponsored PhDs or more direct collaborations between academia and industry to increase relevance and improve career outcomes. A few commenters also highlight the potential impact of declining birth rates and the rising cost of higher education in general.
Japan's scientific output has declined in recent decades, despite its continued investment in research. To regain its position as a scientific powerhouse, the article argues Japan needs to overhaul its research funding system. This includes shifting from short-term, small grants towards more substantial, long-term funding that encourages risk-taking and ambitious projects. Additionally, reducing bureaucratic burdens, fostering international collaboration, and improving career stability for young researchers are crucial for attracting and retaining top talent. The article emphasizes the importance of prioritizing quality over quantity and promoting a culture of scientific excellence to revitalize Japan's research landscape.
HN commenters discuss Japan's potential for scientific resurgence, contingent on reforming its funding model. Several highlight the stifling effects of short-term grants and the emphasis on seniority over merit, contrasting it with the more dynamic, risk-taking approach in the US. Some suggest Japan's hierarchical culture and risk aversion contribute to the problem. Others point to successful examples of Japanese innovation, arguing that a return to basic research and less bureaucracy could reignite scientific progress. The lack of academic freedom and the pressure to conform are also cited as obstacles to creativity. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about Japan's ability to change its deeply ingrained system.
A Brown University undergraduate, Noah Golowich, disproved a long-standing conjecture in data science related to the "Kadison-Singer problem." This problem, with implications for signal processing and quantum mechanics, asked about the possibility of extending certain "frame" functions while preserving their key properties. A 2013 proof showed this was possible in specific high dimensions, leading to the conjecture it was true for all higher dimensions. Golowich, building on recent mathematical tools, demonstrated a counterexample, proving the conjecture false and surprising experts in the field. His work, conducted under the mentorship of Assaf Naor, highlights the potential of exploring seemingly settled mathematical areas.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of the undergraduate's discovery, with some focusing on the surprising nature of such a significant advancement coming from an undergraduate researcher. Others questioned the practicality of the new algorithm given its computational complexity, highlighting the trade-off between statistical accuracy and computational feasibility. Several commenters also delved into the technical details of the conjecture and its proof, expressing interest in the specific mathematical techniques employed. There was also discussion regarding the potential applications of the research within various fields and the broader implications for data science and machine learning. A few users questioned the phrasing and framing in the original Quanta Magazine article, finding it slightly sensationalized.
The original poster is deciding between Physics PhD programs at Stanford and UC Berkeley, having been accepted to both. They're leaning towards Stanford due to perceived stronger faculty in their specific research interest (quantum computing/AMO physics) and the potential for better industry connections post-graduation. However, they acknowledge Berkeley's prestigious physics department and are seeking further input from the Hacker News community to solidify their decision. Essentially, they are asking for perspectives on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program, particularly regarding career prospects in quantum computing.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Physics PhD at Stanford or Berkeley" post largely revolve around the nuances of choosing between the two prestigious programs. Commenters emphasize that both are excellent choices, and the decision should be based on individual factors like specific research interests, advisor fit, and departmental culture. Several commenters suggest visiting both departments and talking to current students to gauge the environment. Some highlight Stanford's stronger connections to industry and Silicon Valley, while others point to Berkeley's arguably stronger reputation in certain subfields of physics. The overall sentiment is that the OP can't go wrong with either choice, and the decision should be based on personal preference and research goals rather than perceived prestige. A few commenters also caution against overemphasizing the "prestige" factor in general, encouraging the OP to prioritize a supportive and stimulating research environment.
This study explores the potential negative impact of generative AI on learning motivation, coining the term "metacognitive laziness." It posits that readily available AI-generated answers can discourage learners from actively engaging in the cognitive processes necessary for deep understanding, like planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning. This reliance on AI could hinder the development of metacognitive skills crucial for effective learning and problem-solving, potentially creating a dependence that makes learners less resourceful and resilient when faced with challenges that require independent thought. While acknowledging the potential benefits of generative AI in education, the authors urge caution and emphasize the need for further research to understand and mitigate the risks of this emerging technology on learner motivation and metacognition.
HN commenters discuss the potential negative impacts of generative AI on learning motivation. Several express concern that readily available answers discourage the struggle necessary for deep learning and retention. One commenter highlights the importance of "desirable difficulty" in education, suggesting AI tools remove this crucial element. Others draw parallels to calculators hindering the development of mental math skills, while some argue that AI could be beneficial if used as a tool for exploring different perspectives or generating practice questions. A few are skeptical of the study's methodology and generalizability, pointing to the specific task and participant pool. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is cautious, with many emphasizing the need for careful integration of AI tools in education to avoid undermining the learning process.
A Nature survey of over 7,600 postdoctoral researchers across the globe reveals that over 40% intend to leave academia. While dissatisfaction with career prospects and work-life balance are primary drivers, many postdocs cited a lack of mentorship and mental-health support as contributing factors. The findings highlight a potential loss of highly trained researchers from academia and raise concerns about the sustainability of the current academic system.
Hacker News commenters discuss the unsurprising nature of the 40% postdoc attrition rate, citing poor pay, job insecurity, and the challenging academic job market as primary drivers. Several commenters highlight the exploitative nature of academia, suggesting postdocs are treated as cheap labor, with universities incentivized to produce more PhDs than necessary, leading to a glut of postdocs competing for scarce faculty positions. Some suggest alternative career paths, including industry and government, offer better compensation and work-life balance. Others argue that the academic system needs reform, with suggestions including better funding, more transparency in hiring, and a shift in focus towards valuing research output over traditional metrics like publications and grant funding. The "two-body problem" is also mentioned as a significant hurdle, with partners struggling to find suitable employment in the same geographic area. Overall, the sentiment leans towards the need for systemic change to address the structural issues driving postdocs away from academia.
Summary of Comments ( 493 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43633383
Hacker News users discussed Anthropic's report on student Claude usage, expressing skepticism about the self-reported data's accuracy. Some commenters questioned the methodology and representativeness of the small, opt-in sample. Others highlighted the potential for bias, with students likely to overreport "productive" uses and underreport cheating. Several users pointed out the irony of relying on a chatbot to understand how students use chatbots, while others questioned the actual utility of Claude beyond readily available tools. The overall sentiment suggested a cautious interpretation of the report's findings due to methodological limitations and potential biases.
The Hacker News post "How University Students Use Claude" (linking to an Anthropic report on the same topic) generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the practical applications and limitations of Claude as observed by students and commenters.
Several commenters highlighted the report's findings about Claude's strengths in summarizing, brainstorming, and coding. One commenter found the summarization aspect particularly useful, mentioning their own positive experience using Claude for condensing lengthy articles. Another commenter pointed out how Claude's capabilities aligned well with the common student needs of synthesizing information from various sources and generating ideas for papers and projects. The ability to quickly summarize research papers and other academic materials seemed to resonate with several users.
The limitations of Claude also formed a significant part of the discussion. Commenters mentioned issues with Claude's accuracy, particularly in specialized fields where it might provide plausible-sounding yet incorrect information. This led to a discussion about the importance of critical evaluation and fact-checking when using AI tools for academic work. The consensus seemed to be that while Claude and similar tools are helpful, they shouldn't be used as a replacement for thorough research and understanding.
Some users touched upon the ethical implications of using AI in education. One commenter raised concerns about plagiarism and the potential for students to over-rely on AI, hindering the development of their own critical thinking and writing skills. This sparked a brief discussion about the responsibility of educational institutions to adapt to these new technologies and develop guidelines for their ethical use.
A few commenters shared anecdotal experiences and specific use cases, such as using Claude to generate code for a web scraping project or to get different perspectives on a philosophical argument. These examples provided practical context to the broader discussion about Claude's capabilities and limitations.
While there wasn't a single overwhelmingly compelling comment, the overall discussion offered valuable insights into the practical applications and potential pitfalls of using large language models like Claude in an educational setting. The comments reflected a generally positive but cautious attitude towards these tools, emphasizing the importance of using them responsibly and critically.