『Fable 5's Cost Gap, AI "Cheating" at Scale, and a 70-Page Handbook in 20 Minutes』のカバーアート

Fable 5's Cost Gap, AI "Cheating" at Scale, and a 70-Page Handbook in 20 Minutes

Fable 5's Cost Gap, AI "Cheating" at Scale, and a 70-Page Handbook in 20 Minutes

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る
When Better Models Widen the Gap: AI's Cost Divide in Higher Ed (AI Goes to College, Ep. 36)What happens to students when the best AI models cost ten times more than the basic ones? That is the question Craig and Rob keep circling in this episode, prompted by Anthropic's brief and strange release of Fable 5.Fable 5 arrived as a guardrailed version of Mythos, a model so good at exposing software vulnerabilities that Anthropic had restricted it to a small set of secure organizations. For about a week it was freely available to paid users; then federal import controls landed and Anthropic pulled it, with no clear word on when, or whether, it returns. The hosts use that whiplash to get at the questions that actually matter for higher ed: who can afford the most capable tools, what that does to learning, and why none of it changes the deeper problem with how we assess students. They also dig into a large new study on student AI use, the agents Rob is building for faculty this summer, and a 70-page course handbook Craig generated in an afternoon.What you'll hearThe cost gap, in real numbers. Craig walks through Anthropic's tiers (Haiku, Sonnet, Opus, Fable) and what they cost to run: a task that runs free under his Opus subscription would have cost roughly $50 in Fable 5, while Haiku sits around $5. His worry is that this turns into an SAT-prep dynamic on steroids, where score gaps come from resource access rather than ability.Rob's counterintuitive flip. Rob raises the possibility that students stuck on weaker models might actually learn more, because they cannot offload as much of the cognitive work and have to stay involved in it. Neither host claims to know; they treat it as a real open question.A large study on student AI use. The hosts dig into a Science paper covering more than 95,000 students across 20 major U.S. public research universities. About two-thirds reported using generative AI in the prior year; roughly 9% of those users said they turned in AI-generated work knowing it wasn't allowed. The inappropriate-use rates run higher in non-STEM fields even though adoption there is lower.Faculty tools built over the summer. Rob describes agents his student interns are building: a syllabus-comparison tool that flags where a faculty member's syllabus diverges from the new template, an active-learning brainstorming assistant, and an AI-resilience checker for assignments and assessments.A textbook-grade handbook in an afternoon. Craig recounts handing OpenAI's Codex a couple of syllabi and one-shotting a 70-page course handbook for a freshman business course, then refining the activities. He pledges to release the finished version under a Creative Commons license.Why the gap is the real storyThe Fable 5 saga is good copy, but the hosts keep pulling it back toward something more durable. When the most capable models cost an order of magnitude more than the entry-level ones, the divide isn't only between rich and poor institutions; it reaches into a single classroom, where one student on a free model and another paying for the frontier model are turning in work that no longer means the same thing.Craig's answer isn't to chase the frontier. It's to teach students to match the model to the task; you don't pay for the expensive employee to do routine work, and you don't burn Fable 5 on something Haiku can handle. Rob extends the point to policy: banning AI outright is folly, both because it's nearly impossible to detect without introducing bias and because it leaves you with a classroom where you have no idea who learned what. Craig demonstrates the detection problem directly, running lightly edited AI text through Pangram and getting a "100% human" verdict. The shared conclusion is one they've made before and make again here: the urgent work is assessment reform, because a graded artifact is no longer a trustworthy signal of what a student actually knows.Episode highlights(12:11) Rob on weaker models and learning: "I wonder if the people who aren't using these highly capable models might actually learn more, because they're not going to be able to cognitively offload as much of the things that they're doing, and they'll need to be more involved in it."(15:51) Craig on Anthropic's rollout: "Anthropic really came off like a drug dealer that gives you a little taste before they try to get you hooked."(20:01) Craig on the study's central finding: "About 9% of those users turned in AI-generated work knowing it wasn't allowed."(26:31) Craig on why assessment has to change: "It's no longer a trustworthy signal of what they know if we keep doing things the way we've been doing them."(37:21) Craig on the AI-built handbook: "It was a 70-page handbook with learning activities; good, not great, in about 20 minutes."(45:31) Craig's top tip: "Handoff documents and memos will make your life so much easier when it comes to AI."References mentionedAnthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos models. Discussed as a guardrailed public ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません