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

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#161

Post by visarga »

feverzsj wrote: post #158

This is just plain stupid. The next gen kids will lack more ability to collect and analyze information, and thus more manipulatable.

I think LLMs+search like Bard, Bing, Phind.com or Perplexity.ai are decent replacements to bare search. Average web content is worse than GPT stuff. You can see that when they compare models trained on raw web vs other sources (books) or curated web. Using bare search means you have to wade through the garbage, a dumpster diving-like experience. You still need to validate everything, on the web or in a LLM window, and that still requires you have sufficient experience in that topic.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#162

Post by sigmoid10 »

Irishsteve wrote: post #148
behnamoh wrote: post #26

Why not use a combination of open source and OpenAI models? GPT-3.5 is already beaten by Mixtral and Mistral-Medium. The first one you can host for free and the second has a darn cheap API while getting really close to GPT-4 performance.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the deal was somehow done via Microsoft and some contract they already have with the Norwegian government. This is how certain ms tech end up with the Irish government so quickly. Mistral , open source etc do not have a sales force. Shame really

Mistral models, in particular Mixtral 8x7, while free to download, are not "free" to run. Even if you have the necessary high end GPUs lying around unused (which is already highly unlikely to begin with), you still need to build and maintain a whole infrastructure around them. It would be extremely difficult to do this more cost effective per computed token than say OpenAI or any of the other big API providers.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#164

Post by vinni2 »

Since many commenters are wondering, yes it is GPT-3.5 access through Azure if I am correct. University of Oslo has already done this for their staff and students. They have built a UI https://www.uio.no/english/services/it/ai/gpt-uio/index.html . They call it privacy-focused ChatGPT, but it is poor quality UI and doesn't have access to GPT-4. It is possible to buy access to GPT-4 but that will be expensive.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#165

Post by klodolph »

chaosprint wrote: post #144
klodolph wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when school districts would buy iPads or laptops or computer labs without any idea of how those machines would support their mission.

If it is an iPad, it stands to reason that people from the education and medical departments should first evaluate whether there is any damage to the children's brains and eyes. But the logic in Oslo is that our municipal government has a budget, and buying it at least shows what I have done as a civil servant. I don’t know if you can get their “must do something” mentality.

> But the logic in Oslo is that our municipal government has a budget, and buying it at least shows what I have done as a civil servant.

That sounds reasonably similar to me. People keep buying iPads for classrooms because “it puts technology in the classroom” or something like that. Then they break and get sold for scrap.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#166

Post by prototo3 »

mrtksn wrote: post #62
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.

Maybe that’s because in both comparisons you’ve mentioned cities not in the EU

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#168

Post by xkbarkar »

Mistletoe wrote: post #124
philip1209 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's intellectually dishonest to assume that AI decreases intelligence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01787-8 https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/ai-threatens-to-lower-...

Nature papers are really diminishing in quality.

A small paper with a linited study on 300 students from Pakistan and China and the result is “Accepting AI without addressing the major human concerns would be like summoning the devils” .

Who knew Nature could sound like a bible thumping southern baptist.

Personal prediciton. AI fears on human IQ is about as valid as fears of the television and computer games have historically been.

Aka incredibly powerful teaching tools wjhen used right, damaging propaganda when used wrong.

Autonomois warfare is what scares me, not this hysterical crap everythime humans get a new useful technology.

Re: Oslo acquires ChatGPT for 110k students and teachers

#169

Post by 15457345234 »

singularity2001 wrote: post #154
15457345234 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you ask an AI for a list of citations and it returns a list of 10 names, pages and dates no amount of 'critical thinking' will let you determine which answers are correct or incorrect, you have to sit there and painfully cross-reference each one. The 'critical thinking' part at this point in time leads you to only one conclusion: that the tool is unreliable and dangerous and shouldn't be used. Or, you're teachin…

checking the first source to see that it's none existing will (hopefully) teach you a lesson

But if the second and third and fourth source exists (let us suppose the 5th doesn't) what will the kids trust, the AI or the search engine? We all know that google is becoming crap and high schools on average don't have a 'proper' library so... Will they assume the first source exists but isn't indexed?

I just think it's a real issue to give kids free access to a tool that so confidently makes stuff up. I know that textbooks aren't perfect but they're at least audited by a committee of experts, mistakes slip in but there's oversight, there's a procedure to ensure that they're reliable representations of (currently understood) facts, and that when politics enters the textbook production process it (correctly) becomes a bit of a national scandal.

Post reply on HN