Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

digi.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 207 posts

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#61

Post by codingminds »

krupan wrote: post #44

Am I the only one left with a deep distrust of ChatGPT? It still lies ("hallucinates"), doesn't it? And no, I will not accept a rebuttal that says, "well everyone lies" because no, not everyone is as confidently wrong as ChatGPT. It's doesn't qualify statements with, "I was told..." or, "some believe..." or, "I'm not sure but it might be..." It just flat out lies. People are enthralled with this tech when they should…

I came here to say this as well. Every time someone replies with "I've asked ChatGPT.." or "Why not ask ChatGPT?" I get seriously mad. It's like religious people. Totally convinced of a fake story and therefore tells it as truth.

> People are enthralled with this tech when they should still be very very skeptical.

Yes, that's the real issue. Everyone should be very skeptical about ChatGPT responses. But instead it's often trusted blindly, because "it's often enough correct".

But I get the idea behind this particular move and at least it can be a chance to teach the students to distrust it.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#62

Post by mrtksn »

FredPret wrote: post #35

Italy: ban ChatGPT, then unban it again Norway: buy 110k licenses

That's pretty much Europe. Drastically different mindsets from London to Istanbul and Oslo to Barcelona. Sometimes I'm surprised how EU(though a smaller subset of Europe) even manages to agree on anything.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#63

Post by darkerside »

krupan wrote: post #44

Am I the only one left with a deep distrust of ChatGPT? It still lies ("hallucinates"), doesn't it? And no, I will not accept a rebuttal that says, "well everyone lies" because no, not everyone is as confidently wrong as ChatGPT. It's doesn't qualify statements with, "I was told..." or, "some believe..." or, "I'm not sure but it might be..." It just flat out lies. People are enthralled with this tech when they should…

I rarely hear any of those phrases from a teacher, fwiw

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#64

Post by quatrefoil »

yumraj wrote: post #49
ta988 wrote: post #2

While high schools across the US are banning it...

Banning access from within school? Yes? How does that matter if kids can access from home?

Presumably in the sense of setting ground rules - "don't use it for school assignments". No different from saying "you're supposed to do the homework yourself, not pay somebody else to do it for you".

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#66

Post by em-bee »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #53
krupan wrote: post #44

Am I the only one left with a deep distrust of ChatGPT? It still lies ("hallucinates"), doesn't it? And no, I will not accept a rebuttal that says, "well everyone lies" because no, not everyone is as confidently wrong as ChatGPT. It's doesn't qualify statements with, "I was told..." or, "some believe..." or, "I'm not sure but it might be..." It just flat out lies. People are enthralled with this tech when they should…

It doesn't "lie" (there's no intent to deceive). It makes "mistakes" [1]. It's a tool that is increasingly a part of the modern world whether you like it or not. Students who learn how to use the tool, which includes learning its limitations, will benefit overall. [1] technically it doesn't even make "mistakes", it's just an LLM doing its thing, but we humans like to anthropomorphise

when a child makes up things that it knows not to be real there is no intent to deceive either. the child lacks the capacity to understand the difference. yet we will tell the child that it is lying.

just like a child, chatgpt can not tell the difference between reality and fiction.

chatgpt lies because it presents fiction as fact. there is no intent to deceive necessary.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#68

Post by calibas »

krupan wrote: post #44

Am I the only one left with a deep distrust of ChatGPT? It still lies ("hallucinates"), doesn't it? And no, I will not accept a rebuttal that says, "well everyone lies" because no, not everyone is as confidently wrong as ChatGPT. It's doesn't qualify statements with, "I was told..." or, "some believe..." or, "I'm not sure but it might be..." It just flat out lies. People are enthralled with this tech when they should…

It's often confidently wrong, but it's still a useful tool.

I spent 5 minutes searching Google for what an email error code meant, it kept showing me threads on Microsoft's forums that never gave me a clear answer. Took about 10 seconds to get the correct answer on ChatGPT.

If you treat it like it's a bumbling assistant that has remarkably encyclopedic knowledge, it's a very helpful tool. If you treat it like it's truly intelligent and let it do your thinking for you, then you're going to have some problems.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#69

Post by MattGaiser »

brettgo1 wrote: post #65

It'll be interesting to see how kids will respond to AI hallucinations. Will they just accept it as fact?

Adults accept all manner of weird claims generated by humans on Facebook, television or in their mailbox as fact, especially if said confidently and authoritiatively. So while I expect many kids to also accept hallucinations as fact, I am not sure that is a much different world.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#70

Post by somenameforme »

bagels wrote: post #28
graphe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Greeks feared the invention of writing would make memory less important.

They weren't wrong, but that's okay, there's too much information for anyone to memorize.

Though surely you'd agree that just because some predicted consequence of an effect at one order of magnitude fails to occur (or occurs at an acceptable level), doesn't mean said effect is therefore irrelevant at any scale. The advent of radio led to a number of predictions about negative social consequences. Similar concerns were expressed over television, and then again over social media. We could debate whatever negative consequences radio and TV had, but the exceptionally negative consequence of social media are indisputable at this point.

So too here, one could argue the positive/negative impacts of things like the calculator on our mental capabilities, but chatbots are taking this automation of mental processes up an order of a magnitude both in terms of the breadth of things that can be "input", and the variable quality of what is output.

The unfortunate thing is really the only way to test this is to basically do what we did with social media - just let a generation have at it, and see what happens.

Post reply on HN