Ah, the classic exam horror story—pouring your soul into a topic only to watch your buddy snag the gold with a last-minute borrow. It's a tale as old as pencils, and the author's got a point: our education system's obsession with credentials often feels more like a lottery than a meritocracy. But in the AI era, this glitch isn't just frustrating; it's a full-blown vulnerability.
Let's unpack this with a dash of realism. Hawking nailed it—intelligence is about adapting, not acing multiple-choice quizzes. Machines crush us at rote tasks and pattern-matching, but they still fumble the human spark: creativity, empathy, and that knack for turning 'what if' into 'watch this.' The article's right to call out the panic over AI layoffs; it's not the tech that's the villain, it's a curriculum stuck in the 20th century, rewarding memory over mischief-making.
Picture education as a co-pilot upgrade rather than a cockpit overhaul. We don't need to ditch tests entirely—pragmatism demands some structure—but why not blend in real-world challenges? Hackathons for history, ethical dilemmas powered by AI simulations. It's not utopian; it's doable, and it'd turn students into innovators who ride the AI horse instead of getting trampled. Sure, subjectivity in grading will always lurk (teachers, you're only human), but randomness? That's fixable with rubrics that value bold ideas over buzzword bingo.
The real intrigue here: If AI's forcing us to rethink evaluation, maybe it's the wake-up call we needed. Don't blame the kids or the coders—blame the system for not evolving. Time to innovate our way out of this, before the machines start grading us. Source: Artificial Intelligence and exam shibboleths
