In-class discussions

In-class discussions will be based on a (set of) paper(s), video(s), and/or podcast(s). The paper/video/podcast(s) will be assigned at least a week in advance of the in-class discussion. By default you are supposed to read/watch/listen the entire paper/video/podcast (we will post on Piazza on what exactly we expect y’all to read if this is not the case). Further, y’all are supposed to read/watch/listen BEFORE coming to the in-class discussion. In the spirit of trust but verify, y’all will have to submit a TQE Response before the class (for more details on this, see below). During the class, everyone is expected to actively participate in the class discussion on the assigned reading (for more details on this, please see below.)

There is no “right” answer

As y’all will see in many parts of the course there will not be a “right” answer. This is more so in the case of the in-class discussions. The discussion are not for you to say what you think we want you to say but rather they are an opportunity for us (and the rest of the class) to hear what YOU think about the topic. So please participate accordingly!

How to read an academic paper

We will use the “three pass” reading system described here. In general, you should use a “second pass” style of reading. For blog posts, you should use a “third pass” style (they’re short!). Keep in mind, though these are loose guidelines intended to be helpful to you, not strict characterizations of how you should read the paper.

Assigned Readings

Discussion 1

Atlas of AI: Chapter 1
She Is in Love With ChatGPT. See piazza for a PDF if you cannot access New York Times.

Discussion 2

Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic See piazza for a PDF if you cannot access the Time article.
Meta’s Big Bet on Bots. See piazza for a PDF if you cannot access the NYMag article.

Discussion 3

Design Justice, Last Chapter.
Chapters 1, 9, 12 and 13 of Mathematics for Human Flourishing. Available via UB Libraries

Discussion 4

TBD

TQE Discussion Summary

For each in-class discussion and the two sets of switch lectures (see the schedule for the dates), you will submit a summary of what you read/what you got from the lectures. This response will be in the format of a TQE Response. Your submission should have three parts:

Thoughts: What did this paper/video/podcast make you think about? What were the specific parts of the paper/video/podcast that made you think that? What were the main strengths/weaknesses of the paper/video/podcast? What did you like/dislike, and why?
Questions What didn’t you understand? What choices did the author make that you didn’t understand/agree with? What were the aspects of the paper/video/podcast that you thought it got wrong?
Epiphanies Does this paper/video/podcast help you think in a new way about a problem you’re working on? Is there a part of the paper/video/podcast you found particularly confusing that you’d like help understanding? How does this paper/video/podcast link to some of the other papers/videos/podcasts we have discussed or other concepts you’ve learned in class?

Submitting the discussion summary

Your submission is due as a PDF of at most one(1) page on Autolab. The submission is due by 11:59pm of the Friday BEFORE the in-class discussion OR the Friday after the last switch lecture of the week (except for the first TQE, which is due on Monday, January 27). You must submit a discussion summary for all the items as a whole if there is more than one assigned (if there are multiple items then they would be fairly closely related to each other).

This is an individual submission

The discussion summaries are individual submission. You should not be collaborating with anyone else on the discussion summaries. Additionally, the Academic Integrity policy on the use of Generative AI also applies; see the syllabus for details.

Discussion summary grade distribution

Here is the split of grades for the various parts of discussion summary (for a total of 100 points):

Thoughts: 30 points.

Questions: 30 points.

Epiphanies: 40 points.

Each discussion summary is worth $3\%$ of your grade

There will be four ($4$) discussion summary submission (see the calendar for the specific dates). Each discussion summary is worth $3\%$ of your final letter grade. We will drop your lowest discussion TQE summary.

There will be two ($2$) switch lecture TQE summaries (see the calendar for the specific dates). Each discussion summary is worth $3\%$ of your final letter grade. Note that none of the switch lecture TQE summaries will get dropped.

Below we present the grading rubric we will use to grade your discussion summary situations. We first start off with some general reminders. Then for each of the three parts of the submission, we start off with what the ideal submission looks like and then present the rubric of each of Level 0 to Level 5.

Discussion Summary Grading Rubric

Few generic comments:

Your answers for Thoughts, Questions and Epiphanies should be clearly marked.

If the three parts are not clearly marked, then you will lose most (if not all) points.

Your submitted file should have one page in total.

We will stop reading at the end of the first page and only graded based on the contents of the first page.

Thoughts (30 points)

Ideal Submission: Does all of the following:

The thoughts/questions/epiphanies (taken as a whole) cover the two resources AND does some non-trivial synthesis among the two resources

Note the “coverage” is based on your entire submission and not just the Thoughts part.

Presents a unique and/or useful interpretation of the content from the student’s own vantage point

Presents at least one clear thought related to the assigned resources.

Thought could be used as a potential discussion prompt in the class discussion.

Couple of clarifications:

We have gone through the assigned resources so we do not need summaries. We are interested in your thoughts.

If your answer had only a summary with no personal thoughts, then it would count as 3 not being satisfied. Also summaries do not count towards the coverage in 1

Level 4 [30 points]: Does 2 - 4 and does some synthesis across the two resources

Level 3 [24 points]: Does 2 - 4 well for at least one resource (but there is no synthesis across the two resources) OR

Considers both resources BUT one of 2 or 4 is weak in both.

Level 2 [15 points]: Does 3 and one of 2 OR 4 [but not both] for at least one resource (unless it satisfies the above condition for Level 3).

Level 1 [7.5 points]: Does 3 [but neither of 2 or 4] for at least one resource.

Level 0 [0 points]: Does not do 3 i.e. either

The submission does not present any thoughts OR

The thoughts are not related to assigned resources.

Questions (30 points)

Ideal Submission: Does all of the following:

The thoughts/questions/epiphanies (taken as a whole) cover the two resources AND does some non-trivial synthesis among the two resources

Note the “coverage” is based on your entire submission and not just the Questions part.

Presents a unique and/or useful interpretation of the content from the student’s own vantage point

Presents at least one clear question related to the assigned resources.

Question could be used as a potential discussion prompt in the class discussion.

Couple of clarifications:

We have gone through the assigned resources so we do not need summaries. We are interested in your questions.

If your answer had only a summary with no personal questions, then it would count as 3 not being satisfied. Also summaries do not count towards the coverage in 1

Level 4 [30 points]: Does 2 - 4 and does some synthesis across the two resources

Level 3 [24 points]: Does 2 - 4 well for at least one resource (but there is no synthesis across the two resources) OR

Considers both resources BUT one of 2 or 4 is weak in both.

Level 2 [15 points]: Does 3 and one of 2 OR 4 [but not both] for at least one resource (unless it satisfies the above condition for Level 3).

Level 1 [7.5 points]: Does 3 [but neither of 2 or 4] for at least one resource.

Level 0 [0 points]: Does not do 3 i.e. either

The submission does not present any questions OR

The questions are not related to assigned resources.

Epiphanies (40 points)

Ideal Submission: Does all of the following:

The thoughts/questions/epiphanies (taken as a whole) cover the two resources AND does some non-trivial synthesis among the two resources

Note the “coverage” is based on your entire submission and not just the Epiphanies part.

Presents a unique and/or useful interpretation of the content from the student’s own vantage point

Presents at least one clear epiphany related to the assigned resources.

Epiphany could be used as a potential discussion prompt in the class discussion.

Couple of clarifications:

We have gone through the assigned resources so we do not need summaries. We are interested in your epiphanies.

If your answer had only a summary with no personal epiphanies, then it would count as 3 not being satisfied. Also summaries do not count towards the coverage in 1

Level 4 [40 points]: Does 2 - 4 and does some synthesis across the two resources

Level 3 [32 points]: Does 2 - 4 well for at least one resource (but there is no synthesis across the two resources) OR

Considers both resources BUT one of 2 or 4 is weak in both.

Level 2 [20 points]: Does 3 and one of 2 OR 4 [but not both] for at least one resource (unless it satisfies the above condition for Level 3).

Level 1 [10 points]: Does 3 [but neither of 2 or 4] for at least one resource.

Level 0 [0 points]: Does not do 3 i.e. either

The submission does not present any epiphanies OR

The epiphanies are not related to assigned resources.

Discussion Participation

There will be class discussions corresponding to each of the four class discussion (there will not be any corresponding in-class discussion in ML-Soc discussions.

During the in-class discussion in ML-Soc (see the schedule for the specific dates), y’all will form groups of size three (3) with perhaps one or two exceptions (to form groups of size two).

What happens in the group discussion

The goal of the group discussion is to come up with two top group responses for each part of the discussion summary: Thoughts, Questions and Epiphanies. Ideally, these responses should come from one of the group members discussion summary submission. However, it is OK to come up with a new response if e.g. if the group felt it would be better to synthesize the individual group member’s responses.

After the group discussion is done, each group member will present two group responses. (It is up to the group on how to divide among the Thoughts, Questions and Epiphanies.) We will be keeping track of individual participation and you will be graded as follows.

Discussion participation grading rubric

Level 0: No participation.

Level 1: Exactly one non-trivial question asked or one non-trivial answer given.

Level 2: At least two non-trivial questions asked or one non-trivial answers given.

What is a non-trivial question/answer?

We do not want to formally define what questions/answers are non-trivial since this is somewhat subjective. But just to give an idea: If the question was “What did you think about the paper assigned for today’s in-class discussion?” An answer “Great!” will be considered trivial whereas a non-trivial answer would be one that goes into the specifics of what part(s) of the paper you though were great. Perhaps a better phrase for non-trivial would be thoughtful.

Each discussion participation is worth $3\%$ of your grade

There will be four ($4$) ML-Soc in-class discussions where your participation will be graded (see the schedule for the specific dates). Each discussion participation is worth $3\%$ of your final letter grade. We will drop your lowest in-class discussion score.