"AI", students, and epistemic crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#21

Post by par1970 » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:28 AM UTC

lionkor wrote: post #7

auggierose wrote: post #4

You could probably make the same argument for search bar vs. peer-reviewed publications. Of course, the search bar (which is also AI, by the way) can help you to get to the peer-reviewed publications. But the same is true for ChatGPT. The problem is that ChatGPT sounds like presenting objective facts. But maybe the lesson here is that just because something sounds right, it isn't necessarily right, and that is someth…

It also undermines the way schools work to teach kids. In order to not have to explain everything, almost all lessons are mostly teaching you some axioms, even if they really are disputed, or have caveats, etc. Good teachers make clear where there is an axiom, and where something is just being simplified or assumed for the sake of saving time. I am a product of the German school system, I'd say I wasn't indoctrinated…

> In order to not have to explain everything, almost all lessons are mostly teaching you some axioms, even if they really are disputed, or have caveats, etc. Good teachers make clear where there is an axiom, and where something is just being simplified or assumed for the sake of saving time.

What exactly do you mean by the word “axiom” here?

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#22

Post by deadbabe » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:29 AM UTC

I really don’t see any other solution to this kind of problem except for one: LLMs must become perfect, and never be wrong.

Relying on kids to do cross referencing and deeper fact checks into everything they ask an LLM is just not going to happen at scale.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#23

Post by sieste » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:29 AM UTC

Like probably many people here I still remember having to find facts in books in libraries, before the internet made this skill mostly redundant. Then, as a student I remember having to put together facts from various (internet) sources into a coherent narrative. Now chatbots can just generate text and that skill seems less valuable.

I use both the internet and GenAI extensively now. But I feel that having gone through the "knowledge work" activities without the crutches puts me in a better position to assess the correctness and plausibility of internet sources and AI in a way that kids who grow up using them constantly don't have.

I feel quite privileged to be in that position, that I wouldn't be in had I been born 10 or 20 years later. I also feel sorry for kids these days for not having the opportunity to learn things "the hard way" like I had to. And I feel extremely snobbish and old for thinking that way.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#24

Post by puttycat » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:30 AM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #4

You could probably make the same argument for search bar vs. peer-reviewed publications. Of course, the search bar (which is also AI, by the way) can help you to get to the peer-reviewed publications. But the same is true for ChatGPT. The problem is that ChatGPT sounds like presenting objective facts. But maybe the lesson here is that just because something sounds right, it isn't necessarily right, and that is someth…

> the search bar (which is also AI, by the way)

It's AI in the older sense of Machine Learning, not in the currently widespread sense of an LLM, which is the source of the problem that the author is discussing.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#25

Post by padolsey » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:31 AM UTC

I don't buy into the rhetoric about misinformation but the author touches on a real concern. I blame ChatGPT and other LLM clients for not surfacing their fallibility more clearly. They should highlight claims in their UX and allow options for the user to "research" or "verify" in their own way, without relying on that very flakey single one-shot inference. The big honchos (Anthropic, OpenAI) need to make it clearer that their output is, at best, an informed guess. A tiny disclaimer doesn't cut it.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#26

Post by puttycat » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:32 AM UTC

pietmichal wrote: post #20

This sentiment reminds me of my teachers who complained that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to learn from.

Wikipedia and LLMs are completely different entities that work in completely different ways.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#27

Post by huimang » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:32 AM UTC

I feel like this is a bit overblown.

Growing up we heard, ad nauseam, that "wikipedia is not a reliable source". People just need to state the same thing about LLMs- they aren't reliable, but can potentially point you to primary sources that -are- reliable. Once the shininess of the new toy wears off, people will adjust.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#28

Post by auggierose » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:33 AM UTC

puttycat wrote: post #24

auggierose wrote: post #4

You could probably make the same argument for search bar vs. peer-reviewed publications. Of course, the search bar (which is also AI, by the way) can help you to get to the peer-reviewed publications. But the same is true for ChatGPT. The problem is that ChatGPT sounds like presenting objective facts. But maybe the lesson here is that just because something sounds right, it isn't necessarily right, and that is someth…

> the search bar (which is also AI, by the way) It's AI in the older sense of Machine Learning, not in the currently widespread sense of an LLM, which is the source of the problem that the author is discussing.

Face palm.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#29

Post by mrcartmeneses » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:33 AM UTC

sieste wrote: post #23

Like probably many people here I still remember having to find facts in books in libraries, before the internet made this skill mostly redundant. Then, as a student I remember having to put together facts from various (internet) sources into a coherent narrative. Now chatbots can just generate text and that skill seems less valuable. I use both the internet and GenAI extensively now. But I feel that having gone throu…

It’s something reflected in the conversations I have with my academic friends. I’m told that every essay is written in the same “voice” and that although they are usually a simulacra of an academic paper, they say nothing. The sad part comes when we reflect that these students are not learning the deep thinking skills that comes with academic writing

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#30

Post by superfist » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 10:36 AM UTC

llm_trw wrote: post #6

auggierose wrote: post #4

You could probably make the same argument for search bar vs. peer-reviewed publications. Of course, the search bar (which is also AI, by the way) can help you to get to the peer-reviewed publications. But the same is true for ChatGPT. The problem is that ChatGPT sounds like presenting objective facts. But maybe the lesson here is that just because something sounds right, it isn't necessarily right, and that is someth…

I had that same argument, the teacher who told me to not trust non peer reviewed articles ended up flooding her Facebook was with pro-brexit lies a decade later. Turns out critical thinking is not outsourcing your thinking to a third party, be it a peer reviewes journal, google search results, or chatgpt.

"not trust non peer reviewed articles" - this is such naive advice. It is not black and white, peer reviewed articles only increase chance that information included in article is legit because it was verified in some formal process. I wonder how many times people giving such simple advices mention how often peer reviewed articles are retracted or can't even be replicated and how this vary accross disciplines.