The difference is that at one point they could do basic arithmetic. They went through the fundamentals/building blocks to get where they are currently. Getting weaker at something is not the same as never having to put in the effort to learn it in the first place. Just because they’re not particularly good at it anymore doesn’t mean they don’t understand how arithmetic fundamentally works (which would be incredibly concerning). They can look at a problem on a piece of paper and completely understand what it means.

Also, they are leaning on a calculator, a specific tool with a proven use that literally everyone knows how to use. LLM’s are glorified beta tests where the VC-backed companies are begging the rest of us to figure out the billion dollar application for them. It doesn’t even remotely compare from a utility standpoint. I don’t need to promise you what a calculator will eventually do when it gets better or convince you of their usefulness. It is self evident and consistent

That's just a poor analogy. A better one would be with lobotimized people doing math.

The problem is that only works at the advanced courses. However people need to learn the basics before they reach that level, specially when they are starting and are in many regards below the LLM's baseline.

Blue books.

Need to type? Computer labs (“test taking labs” idk) are back baby. Simple machines, no Internet.

Pretty sure that solves 90% of the testing problem. If somebody is overly reliant on LLM’s and refuses to learn, they’ll pay with their grades on the big assignments. Bummer for teachers who don’t love blue books, but I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to sniff out LLMs and constantly mistrusting your students.

Says who?

Your work will be ‘graded’ by other humans who don’t know what they are talking about, or an LLM which will assume the median answer is correct?