There’s no reason at this point to put all your cryptographic eggs in the post-quantum crypto (PQC) basket. Elliptic curve crypto (ECC) is widely studied and understood; while it’s more vulnerable to quantum cryptanalysis, this is mitigated by the hybrid ECC+PQC proposals (except a bit of lost performance). On the flip side, the PQC stuff is new enough that new attacks are still being devised, so relying fully on that seems like a bad idea. Someone is trying to force the standardization of a PQC-only standard under the claim that it is secure enough, but ignores evidence from quite recent work showing that attacks continue to improve. This is before getting into the fact that PQC implementations are harder to get right and that popular PQC implementations have had nasty side-channel attacks.

If you find that onerous, I guess a paper exam would probably also feel pretty depressing to you.

Yes, said machine could have both the LAN connectivity and WAN access, and we could set up the whole exam website on it, but we would lose out on the flexibility to let profs choose the platform that works best for them.

That said - requiring students to hand-write answers is reasonably effective. It's a lot more boring to hand-copy text out of an LLM answer than write it yourself, and it makes the "cheating" significantly more visceral.

Yes, students can raise their score by cramming, but won't be as fast or as fluent as a student who has learned and internalized the material over the term.

As a result, I've been able to challenge students to solve interactive software security challenges on the midterm and final with automatic grading - something that would have been impossible with pen and paper.

Scalability is really the major challenge. We're rolling out more CBTF rooms and rolling out access to other departments due to demand, but it's definitely more resource-intensive than pen-and-paper. One possibility is to treat CBTFs as computer labs when not actively administering exams (or maybe even vice-versa), something we're looking into doing.

(/s)

Plus - the agent had clearly malicious intent - port-scan this volunteer-run network with seriously overpowered hardware on an hourly basis. What the DN42 folks decided to do is not much different from deploying a tarpit or honeypot against a malicious crawler.

-ooze -oose -ews -ues -use -oes -uise

You can do this purely with prefixes ending in consonants, i.e. not by turning -use into -ouse, for example.

Worse, a decent chunk of research profs will treat teaching as a burden that just has to be done - a distraction from their exciting world-changing research. So, you get attitudes like the ones you mentioned.

I'm actually not sure why the system is set up to assume that profs who are good at research are automatically suited to teach classes, but that is how it's setup.

When you're up against a deadline - and unless you're very good at time management you're frequently up against a deadline - it's going to be an irresistible lever to pull.

In times past, cheating would mean copying an answer off the Internet or off a friend, both of which are easy to detect. More sophisticated cheaters might spend an hour rewriting the solution to make it less obvious they cheated, but at some point the cost of cheating (time + risk of getting caught) starts exceeding the cost of just doing the assignment. AI changes this - you get a customized answer that doesn't show up in a database with no extra work.

The thing is, students fail to realize just what using AI robs them of. Struggling with the assignment is the entire point. You don't learn if the assignments are too easy; you need to have some challenge to push your brain to understand the material more deeply and to build those pathways to apply the knowledge in novel ways. You become more efficient and effective over time as that knowledge settles in and you get more proficient - one of the reasons why time-bounded exams still make sense (being fast is also a proxy measure for understanding).

The maladaptive part is when you start regretting not saving money, because it has two knock-on effects: it makes the decision to spend much more emotional (which negatively impacts rational decision-making) and it can negatively impact the enjoyment of the thing itself. For example, the maladaptive part might take the form of being reminded of the cost every time you look at the repaired phone.

I’ve used Sublime (3 and 4), VSCode, Notepad++, vi, etc.; even made some plugins for Sublime, and I still vastly prefer BBEdit.