141–150 of 296 posts
I’m surprised by the statement that cost is a limiting factor. If the model produces correct high quality output, 750 words for 2 cents is a bargain! Do you know how long it would take me to write 750 words??? Even if I only spend 10 minutes it’s a no-brained to use this tool to help.
Zero Trust Homework is a fascinating idea, as described in the article, but I don't know how many teachers will adapt because they'll just end up confusing themselves. When you read too many lies, you might start forgetting the truth yourself. Instead, what I think there will be a much greater short term market for, is a system that will run the teacher's homework assignment (with variations) against GPT-3, ChatGPT,…
While I can (unfortunately) see this happening - it seems incredibly futile and pointless to try and fight such an arms race. When AI-supported writing becomes the norm having students write essays without AI-assistance will be like trying to force students to do complex arithmetic without calculators. Universities and schools need to accept that writing essays without AI support will simply not be a useful skill any…
It’s kind of mind-blowing that anyone could think this.
You’re posting on a website for essays. Small essays, generally speaking, if we restrict ourselves to the comments section, but essays nonetheless. You yourself just wrote one, because you wanted to express your thoughts on an issue and you wanted to solicit responses from others.
Would you be fine with a future where all written text on the internet, everywhere, was generated by AI? Do you not see any problems with that?
The point of writing is that you write to express your thoughts. Not anyone else’s. If it doesn’t come from you, then what’s the point?
I can’t envision a future where people voluntarily cease all written communication. Unless you’re a hardcore singulatarian, and you want to plug yourself into the Matrix so you never have to interact with other people again.
As easy solution to this is the just not give any credit for homework that goes toward a final grade. Have a number of in person closed book tests that are difficult enough to prove satisfactory understanding of the topic. Homework is just a mechanism for a teacher/professor to force a student to dig into and really understand a subject. If the student can use these AI tools to subvert that, then instead of wasting e…
The reason I built that was just because I was annoyed by how lazy my professors were. Almost every single class (which I was paying for) was graded based on your performance on copy and pasted, endlessly reused tests on Blackboard. Sometimes you could just search the question on Google, and find pdf dumps of the exact same test from 5+ years ago. If you don't cheat, you risk getting a lower grade than the people who do cheat (aka everyone). Why spend all that money going to college if you're just going to let other people get ahead of you so easily? The point of degree is to make you more competitive in the job market, but deciding to not cheat is risking that investment.
Unfortunately, I never actually used it or deployed it once. Coordinating a whole class to install and use a chrome extension for cheating isn't exactly easy. And as far as cheating in online tests goes, there are easier ways to do it.
But yeah, in-person proctored exams are how it should be done. It's the only thing that's fair to everyone.
> despite the fact that the underlying model is the two-year old GPT-3. This is incorrect, it's not a 2 year old model, it's the latest updated model they're calling GPT 3.5, which I believe has an order of magnitude higher number of parameters. Also, the reason there wasn't an explosion of AI uses for OpenAI's products versus something like Stable Diffusion is that OpenAI costs money and isn't extensible, while SD i…
The cat is out of the bag and it's not going back in. We'll have totally free model in no time, just like StableDiffusion. These models may take money to train but either a philanthropist billionaire like emostaque pays for the training or several people team up to fund the training.
If we've got a closed OpenAI (funny name for something closed and for pay right/) today, we'll have an open one tomorrow.
Something I've noticed about chat ais vs direct search is that because a chat ai is a blackbox, I can't dig into an answer's source at all. With a search, I can read the wikipedia sources or I know the forum, or the poster. But with an AI, it's a dead end and it sucks. I can ask people how they know something, but AI training data is invisible. It doesn't know how it knows something. There is this oracle with a 10% c…
Given that most people never check the source of what they read, this is really scary. Because now everyone has the ability to write and say things that sound plausible and likely to be convincing, and the truth will be harder to access.
One of my subjects at highchool was technical drawing. The teacher was a quite old man who was set on his ways. We would have to draw 3D pieces by hand, using our squares, bevels and compasses, and lining everything with an ink pencil afterwards, and he gave us a lot of homework to do, which he examined for imperfections. I was incredibly bad a it. I would start a drawing, only to discover halfway through it that it…
I had to take the same course, sans the cheating, just as a pre-requisite to Auto CAD and whatever it's called now. I'm not sure how drawing by hand helped me, but it is what it is.
Now, almost 30 years after my days of technical drawing, I must say that I consider those hours spent drawing a terrible waste of time, partly because I did not go on to the career for which technical school was preparing me, and secondly because technology has made pen and paper obsolete and I see no particular ability to carry over from hand and square technical drawing to CAD-assisted design.
The latter is an important point to consider now that we are moving from a non-AI world (like 10 years before my time in technical school) to a little-AI world (my first 3 or 4 years of technical school) to an anywhere-AI world.
There has been a lot of "well, we had a good run" comments on ChatGPT threads from engineers lately. I get where this sentiment is coming from, but I also think that the article paints a good picture of how we must "pivot" as a species to avoid faceplanting completely. Zero Trust Homework sounds like a strategy we will be forced to implement: the system will frequently give the wrong answers (and not just on accident…
I'm more concerned that we would see these essays being _graded_ by systems that make these sorts of errors.
I can't imagine teachers reading through essay after essay, each a tedious cookie-cutter nugget of banal pseudo-perfection. The teachers will give up in no time.
There would be no point giving feedback, since it is not the student to who you are giving it. Likewise, the students would have little interest in feedback, since they have no personal ego investment in their output.
Besides the best essays will be generated by those with access to the better generative software. At this point there is simply nothing to grade. What would be the point?
Once essay writing and grading bots are locked in combat it's only a matter of time until that market exhausts itself and disappears in a puff of logic.
Maybe this is all a good thing. The process of writing and grading essays as a way of "measuring" knowledge has been a sham for too long. It's a throwback to school from the turn of the last century.
Q: this is wrong, John Locke believed in separation of powers, Hobbes was a proponent of absolutism.
A: I apologize if my response was not accurate. Thomas Hobbes was indeed a proponent of absolutism, which is the belief that a single, central authority should have complete control over a country. Hobbes believed that this central authority should be an absolute monarch, who would have the power to make all decisions for the country and its people. He did not believe in the separation of powers or in a system of checks and balances. My knowledge cutoff is 2021, and it is possible that my response was based on outdated information. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
> That there, though, also shows why AI-generated text is something completely different; calculators are deterministic devices: if you calculate 4,839 + 3,948 - 45 you get 8,742, every time. ChatGPT is just a program. Given the exact same input and seed, its result is going to be 100% deterministic too. It's just that it's going to get the same wrong result in a deterministic way. Determinism may be hidden away from…
Relying on an incorrect model frozen in time seems worse than relying on an incorrect model that is continuously improved.
Expert systems of the past were deterministic in that the answers were computed from assumed facts and the logic could be queried. That's fundamentally different from how this works.
After I corrected the chat bot: Q: this is wrong, John Locke believed in separation of powers, Hobbes was a proponent of absolutism. A: I apologize if my response was not accurate. Thomas Hobbes was indeed a proponent of absolutism, which is the belief that a single, central authority should have complete control over a country. Hobbes believed that this central authority should be an absolute monarch, who would have…