Live data from Hacker News

What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

crookedtimber.org

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#41

This could be great for university. Suddenly thousands of mediocre low effort papers are no longer sufficient to get a degree. Many students will have to put in real work. Others won't graduate and have to look at trade school or alternatives. College degrees will go back to meaning the holder has an advanced, specialized education and no longer be required for low end jobs as a bad filter.

As if.

I've seen a rather disturbing amount of malfeasance by educators, where they award the highest grade to anyone who even moderately puts in an effort. Many educators even waving away their responsibility to accurately determine aptitude and assign grades accurately.

Grade grubbing alone has infiltrated even the most prestigious, and I find it hard to believe that the average student is that much better than their counterparts up to 70 years ago. Even the average student at these institutions. I just don't believe we can trust educators to do their job. I remember arguing back and forth with an educator who believed their only job is to 'educate', where if someone learned something, then they have done their job. I could not believe it. I'd understand if it was from a grade school perspective, but this person was teaching at a university. Another educator on HN no more than a few weeks ago in a related thread said their perspective is to not deal with the students, parents, and administration who will hound them about grades, they said something along the lines of "giving people an A will stop this, and who cares anyway? The best of the best will go on to do research, side projects, etc. anyway".

Speaking towards the article, "Humanities" absolutely deserve their reputation, even among research where they have a perpetual replication crisis, hilarious events such as Sokal and Grievance Studies affairs. If you don't want this reputation, take a hit towards funding, call out poor research, in fact don't allow poor research to even get near publication. Reject more students. It is clear standards are low, raise them, significantly. You can make mistakes, but I hardly if ever see them corrected in a timely fashion. I should not see articles where a US state is considered to be higher in terms of voter suppression compared to North Korea.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#42
The argument here is that society holds the humanities in contempt because their students aren't held to any meaningful standards --> aren't taught to do anything useful. I think that is dated, but was the sense ~10 years ago. Today, they are seen as an active threat to society by many, with their one main contribution being promotion of intersectionality / DEI / attack on freedom of speech & meritocracy.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#43
post #3

> when I asked it who was “President in 2022,” it responded (inter alia) with “My training data only goes up until 2021, so I am not able to provide information about events that have not yet occurred.” > Notice that it goes off the rails in its answer because it wrote me that in 2023! This is not a mistake. If the bot is trained with data only up to 2021, then for the bot 2022 is in the future, no matter when you as…

[deleted]

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#44

Chat GPT reveals that academia has fallen short of the trend as follows. " When you are growing and everyone trusts you, you can do no wrong, and your mistakes shrink into nothing on their own." " When you begin to shrink and your reputation sours, you can do no right, your wrongs balloon catastrophically and your rights slowly shrink into nothing like your wrongs used to" Academia I'm sure provides tons of stuff, bu…

> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore

Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions.

Alternative media isn't very good at presenting basic facts correctly, something institutions still do well and can only spin so far. Alternative media outright lies about facts.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#45
post #42

The argument here is that society holds the humanities in contempt because their students aren't held to any meaningful standards --> aren't taught to do anything useful. I think that is dated, but was the sense ~10 years ago. Today, they are seen as an active threat to society by many, with their one main contribution being promotion of intersectionality / DEI / attack on freedom of speech & meritocracy.

What is meritocracy?

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#46
post #6
post #3

> when I asked it who was “President in 2022,” it responded (inter alia) with “My training data only goes up until 2021, so I am not able to provide information about events that have not yet occurred.” > Notice that it goes off the rails in its answer because it wrote me that in 2023! This is not a mistake. If the bot is trained with data only up to 2021, then for the bot 2022 is in the future, no matter when you as…

In fact the probability that Biden was dead or incapacited by now wasn't nil. So wouldn't even be right to extrapolate based on mandate terms.

[deleted]

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#47
post #3

> when I asked it who was “President in 2022,” it responded (inter alia) with “My training data only goes up until 2021, so I am not able to provide information about events that have not yet occurred.” > Notice that it goes off the rails in its answer because it wrote me that in 2023! This is not a mistake. If the bot is trained with data only up to 2021, then for the bot 2022 is in the future, no matter when you as…

We’ll probably see some real skill when Bing gets ChatGPT integration, but I fear even “ChatGPT Premium” won’t support browsing the web.

you.com's chatgpt feature incorporates weblinks.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#48
post #44

Chat GPT reveals that academia has fallen short of the trend as follows. " When you are growing and everyone trusts you, you can do no wrong, and your mistakes shrink into nothing on their own." " When you begin to shrink and your reputation sours, you can do no right, your wrongs balloon catastrophically and your rights slowly shrink into nothing like your wrongs used to" Academia I'm sure provides tons of stuff, bu…

> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions. Alternative media isn't very good at presenting basic facts correctly, something institutions still do well and can only spin so far. Alternative media outright lies about facts.

For me, it’s not that I can’t differentiate, but that it’s tiresome. Major news sources frequently blend fact and opinion so it’s extra effort to read their material rather than to just read the source directly.

This doesn’t mean I read “alternative media” but being slightly better than a cesspool doesn’t mean I want to use them.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#49
post #45
post #42

The argument here is that society holds the humanities in contempt because their students aren't held to any meaningful standards --> aren't taught to do anything useful. I think that is dated, but was the sense ~10 years ago. Today, they are seen as an active threat to society by many, with their one main contribution being promotion of intersectionality / DEI / attack on freedom of speech & meritocracy.

What is meritocracy?

OK, I’ll bite. A very reductionist definition is “bigger contribution = bigger reward”.

Re: What ChatGPT reveals about the collapse of support for higher education

#50
"But it is to be hoped that if ChatGPT triggers us into tackling how we can remove our willingness to give bullshit a pass — even for the wrong reason (combating the the threat of massive plagiarism) — then it may help us improve higher education."

That's a useful problem to tackle. ChatGPT is good at well-written blithering. This shines a spotlight on the fact that society, and academia, tolerates well-written blithering. A sizable percentage of what appears on op-ed pages and in "thinky" magazines of all political persuasions looks like ChatGPT output.

The humanities, as a field, now have to address that. Text on factual subjects which is not grounded to facts or a valid model is junk. That's recognized for technical writing. A "how to" article or a repair manual that tells you to do things that won't work is junk. That's not a criterion that's historically been applied in the humanities.

Now it has to be.

This isn't the end of the world. There was a time when good penmanship was a indicator of content quality. (Look up "Chancellery cursive") Then came typewriters. After that, spelling was considered a useful indicator. Then came spell check, followed by grammar checkers. Those traditional indicators are now dead. Lack of such errors merely indicates that someone has the right tools.

Good automated blithering generators may force a style of writing more like classical newspaper reporting. Who, What, When, Where, Why, under the byline of the reporter who was there. Or like Wikipedia, with "cite needed" all over. That's not a bad thing.

Now we need automated tools to criticize blithering. Ones that check sources and verify that the sources say what was quoted. Automated provenance verification. Checking for false confirmation via multiple routes from the same source. Opinion presented as fact.

This could be healthy for political discourse. I look forward to seeing speeches marked up by automated checking systems. Perhaps in real time.

Post reply on HN