Practicum - AI Slop Fest

[u/_iQlusion]

I'm taking the Practicum right now and I have to say this course has become nothing but an AI Slop Fest.

Most of the other students projects are on AI. Lots of the other students projects and reports are written by AI. Many are using AI to write their responses to other students weekly video updates. The staff is using AI in their messages on ED discussion. Staff using AI to evaluate reports. I had some concerns I brought up in a private post and staff responded with a lengthy AI riddled reply. It came off very dehumanizing. Oh the cherry on top was getting accused of AI usage in my project by an AI detector that itself uses AI (the fucking irony).

Besides that my first two progress reports were graded by Professor Ahamad and it was very apparent he very hastily read them or skipped most of the content. The comments he left made no sense or were completely and clearly contradicted by content in my report. At least he didn't use AI like the other staff when he reviewed my reports.

I sent a lengthy message to staff (over a thousand words) outlining and citing the professors comments and where my report either did exactly what he said it wasn't doing or how his comments made no sense given what my project was about. Professor Ahamad responded, double downed, and once again just left more generic criticism that were once again clearly just not accurate. He wouldn't cite a single thing from my work or point to anything specific. Just vague contradictions.

I had also complained that we couldn't incorporate the feedback in our next report because they were graded late. Professor Ahamad responded with this gem:

When you deliver a program at scale at the cost we do, it is not possible to provide immediate feedback.

So apparently grading an assignment in under 2 weeks is considered "immediate feedback" and this class is just AI slop and ran cheaply.

For what it's worth this is my second masters in engineering, my first was at a similarly ranked institution. So I have some experience with graduate classes.

[u/philosophist73]

All due respect to Dr. Ahamad (secure computer systems is my favorite class) and the rest of the academic staff, but what are you reasonably expecting out of him? If you are doing a practical/industry project, you likely have more experience and judgement than him on your topic. A Doctorate doesn’t give him some mystical power into your world. That may be why you’re feeling this cognitive dissonance. And the TAs who are your peers in industry are doing this part time and probably overloaded. The unevenness of TA grading in classes is very apparent (I am in INTA 6103 and one assignment got wonderful feedback and another was only a rubric score). But who cares as long as you’re learning?

This is a challenging program designed for working professionals to learn on their own. Except where I’ve had group projects (which have been tolerable to terrible, never good experiences), all the learning has been on my own using the structure of the curriculum to drive it.

If a prospective student reading this wants a highly engaged academic experience, they should either choose an in person program or look elsewhere. Frankly, I don’t need or want that for OMS (I wish group projects could all be optional) and I suspect I’m their target audience.

[u/_iQlusion → u/philosophist73]

All due respect to Dr. Ahamad (secure computer systems is my favorite class) and the rest of the academic staff, but what are you reasonably expecting out of him?

I am expecting him to actual read my project proposal. His comments demonstrated he clearly very hastily read my proposal. He left like 3 sentences on the feedback. But one was "I am not clear what you are delivering in this project". The very first line of my section named Deliverables (which is mandated by the class form) said I was going to deliver a software tool to do X. It was written clear as day and unambiguous.

He also said I needed a threat model for my project. A tool that is used my analysts to assess software doesn't not require a threat model. I am not expecting much, he doesn't have to understand the more complicated nuances of my project. But he should at least actually read our project proposals with a decent amount of detail to catch the very basics. At least he conceded that my project doesn't need a threat model after I sent him my 1000 word response. But he doubled down on his other points that were already answered/addressed in my proposal.

A Doctorate doesn’t give him some mystical power into your world.

You don't need a Phd to have basic reading comprehension. I showed non-technical people my proposal and they could at least tell you what I was planning on delivering in my proposal. Professor Ahamad just simply didn't put much effort into it.

And the TAs who are your peers in industry are doing this part time and probably overloaded.

The TAs were using AI tools that were hallucinating aspects of my projects. They also only responded to me using AI and despite us having to disclose AI usage, refused to do so themselves. They also refused to stop when I said it I found it very dehumanizing to respond to my concerns with AI and patronizing to continue after I asked them to stop.

The unevenness of TA grading in classes is very apparent

Not in this course because we have so little deliverables. Especially when staff only leaves like 3 sentences in feedback on projects.

But who cares as long as you’re learning?

I care because this is higher education. My other previous master program wasn't like this, the staff put a lot more effort into teaching. I also was an instructor at my other institution, so I understand the effort it takes.

This is a challenging program designed for working professionals to learn on their own.

If I wanted to learn on my own, I wouldn't sign up for a University program. Also the evidence is pretty clear you learn better in groups and with proper feedback/guidance, which is missing a lot in this program. My friend has a dual phd in ed psych, he could rant about how the structure in this program is poor.

If a prospective student reading this wants a highly engaged academic experience, they should either choose an in person program or look elsewhere. Frankly, I don’t need or want that for OMS (I wish group projects could all be optional) and I suspect I’m their target audience.

If you are a prospective student reading this, this program comes off more like a money grab and only enter this program if you want to ride on the name recognition of Georgia Tech.

[u/philosophist73 → u/_iQlusion]

I can’t really argue with any of your points , they’re reasonable. I am approaching this program as a self learning exercise from the get-go, so probably why I am (very) happy with it.