While widespread LLM access may have exacerbated the problem, for courses with grades determined solely by uncontrolled out-of-classroom assignments there were almost definitely already a good chunk of students essentially just paying their way through. Having at least some portion of the assessment, maybe a defense of their written paper, take place in a controlled environment seems necessary to verify that it's actually the student doing the work and not someone else or a chatbot.
Alternatively, in some cases it might make sense to assess students by what they can do when fully allowed to use LLMs, given they'll likely be able to use one in their job. If even a student knowing the course material can add nothing to what an LLM already does alone, it may be a good idea to revise the syllabus. I know the author says "Look, even if that were true, you have to understand that I don’t equate education with job training" and to a large extent I agree, but equally they in turn should understand that a lot of students do want jobs and so want to learn at least some material that isn't already automated.
Alternatively, in some cases it might make sense to assess students by what they can do when fully allowed to use LLMs, given they'll likely be able to use one in their job. If even a student knowing the course material can add nothing to what an LLM already does alone, it may be a good idea to revise the syllabus. I know the author says "Look, even if that were true, you have to understand that I don’t equate education with job training" and to a large extent I agree, but equally they in turn should understand that a lot of students do want jobs and so want to learn at least some material that isn't already automated.