11–20 of 115 posts
Now that’s a good teacher.
I’m curious how well this will actually help the students retain the truth. I could see the students doubting their memory because they don’t remember if they read the information from the ChatGPT essay (which might even be correct) or their text book.
Therefore we need the skills of management. This is probably a superset of doing the work yourself - except you needn't acquire proficiency; and there will be many basic aspects that don't need checking. In short, it's easier to criticise than create (fun, too).
This isn't fundamentally different to other automation. For example, in computational fluid dynamics, it used to be important to be about writing the software. Now, it's half understanding the theory and half using the software.
Plot twist: professor works for openai and is using them for human feedback
One of my worries regarding AI is that we will decide to deskill ourselves instead of using the extra productivity to improve ourselves. In this case, students may end up with a smaller ability to write their own thoughts but in return get fill-in-the-blanks exercises.
So I wonder what it means if/when we let the AIs come up with the ideas and we just correct them. I have no idea what the implications might be.
One of my worries regarding AI is that we will decide to deskill ourselves instead of using the extra productivity to improve ourselves. In this case, students may end up with a smaller ability to write their own thoughts but in return get fill-in-the-blanks exercises.
Yea, makes me think we might shift from being writers and editors to mostly being editors. I remember years back a friend of mine (I think an English major in undergrad) said he was more of an editor than a writer because he often struggled to come up with new or original ideas. So I wonder what it means if/when we let the AIs come up with the ideas and we just correct them. I have no idea what the implications might…
One of my worries regarding AI is that we will decide to deskill ourselves instead of using the extra productivity to improve ourselves. In this case, students may end up with a smaller ability to write their own thoughts but in return get fill-in-the-blanks exercises.
Reading comprehension, critical thinking and source verification will be much harder than today. This is not filling in blanks. This encourages students to verify and analyze and that is great! It also gives them a framework to understand the limitations of AI so they can more effectively use it.
In an internal slack channel I proposed to generate (incorrect) solutions for coding problems with ChatGPT and have candidate do code reviews as an alternative interview format. I was almost chastised for proposing this. Someone proposed that, if I wanted to go down that path, I could manually generate a wrong solution so that it is curated. I think he is missing the point.
One of my worries regarding AI is that we will decide to deskill ourselves instead of using the extra productivity to improve ourselves. In this case, students may end up with a smaller ability to write their own thoughts but in return get fill-in-the-blanks exercises.
I believe the societal level risks are reversed. Because so many people will use AI to produce content we will be overwhelmed with even more shady content, and mid quality fake news. Reading comprehension, critical thinking and source verification will be much harder than today. This is not filling in blanks. This encourages students to verify and analyze and that is great! It also gives them a framework to understan…
Your scenario is not a contradiction. We could have a lower level of ability to express ourselves combined with a lot of AI generic content effecting reading comprehension combined with lower-level AIs (because they end up being trained on AI generic content) combined with style being stuck in a certain form and never evolving (because AIs will keep generating new generic content in the same default style).
Deskilling is one of the things that worries me more than AIs 'taking over the world' - more likely we'll eventually hand it to AIs willingly or evolve ourselves somehow.
>This encourages students to verify and analyze and that is great!
Very reasonable, I'm not against this exercise per se. I am wondering where this will lead to.
One of my worries regarding AI is that we will decide to deskill ourselves instead of using the extra productivity to improve ourselves. In this case, students may end up with a smaller ability to write their own thoughts but in return get fill-in-the-blanks exercises.
Yea, makes me think we might shift from being writers and editors to mostly being editors. I remember years back a friend of mine (I think an English major in undergrad) said he was more of an editor than a writer because he often struggled to come up with new or original ideas. So I wonder what it means if/when we let the AIs come up with the ideas and we just correct them. I have no idea what the implications might…