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

"AI", students, and epistemic crisis

miniver.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#31

Post by werdnk »

Angostura wrote: post #16
lionkor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a 'pro brexit lie'?

Immigration will be reduced We will be able to negotiate excellent trade deals outside the EU effortlessly The EU need our trade so badly we will be able to negotiate a seamless trade deal with them … and many others.

I think believing the first lie that conservatives would really reduce immigration is the product of trusting politicians too much.

Another faction of the pro-Brexiteers would think of the system in terms of a uniparty. The fundamentalists like Farage have no chance of getting elected as PM in the British system, though he did get an MP seat now.

Would things change if Farage were PM? I'm cynical, probably not.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#32

Post by immibis »

superfist wrote: post #30
llm_trw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And, like all formal processes, it has been gamed. Many journals are full of high quality material; others are full of peer reviewed bullshit.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#33

Post by auggierose »

puttycat wrote: post #26
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.

And yet, much of the same criticism applies to both.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#34

Post by immibis »

kukkeliskuu wrote: post #17
auggierose wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, you could apply the same argument to peer-reviewed articles, although at the moment they are still much (much!) more reliable than ChatGPT.

Ever heard of replication crisis?

Still better than ChatGPT.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#35

Post by werdnk »

In the current system, where students can anonymously report teachers (most of whom do not have tenure and are afraid) it will be hard to change anything.

Otherwise, you could do a mixture of very strict exams without multiple choice and large individual projects (no group projects).

If you only do exams, people who don't do well thinking in a room crammed full of people at 8am will be disadvantaged.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#36

Post by nebulous1 »

huimang wrote: post #27

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.

I think it's pretty clear that as a tool they can be used very effectively if you have at least some understanding of their limitations.

I will say that wikipedia, as things stand, is way more accurate than chatgpt. So much so that comparing them doesn't even make sense to me.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#37

Post by hyperhopper »

auggierose wrote: post #33
puttycat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And yet, much of the same criticism applies to both.

Wikipedia is generally right and you can check it's sources. Also everything there was written by a human.

LLMs are often wrong and you cannot check their sources. Also since it is generated you can trick it into spitting out falsehoods intentionally.

They are not even close.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#38

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

The great problem with ChatGPT is that it's a sycophant and aims to please.

If you ask it about something it doesn't know, right then and there, it will concoct a fiction for you. It won't say "I don't know," or "I can't help with that."

If you coach it to respond to something in a certain way, it'll respond that way for you as its top priority.

If you ask it to review a text, it'll usually find a way to give you at least a 7 or 8 out of 10. (Though, interestingly, rarely a 10/10 score. You can upload excerpts from some of the great works of literature and philosophy and see ChatGPT give them an 8/10, just as it gives an 8/10 to your essay or blog post.) Practically the only way to get a halfway critical response is to add the words "be critical" to your prompt.

A more circumspect and less obsequious ChatGPT would solve a lot of problems.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#39

Post by Kiro »

Am I the only one who almost never experience any hallucinations when talking to ChatGPT? I have to really push it into a corner with trick questions and conflicting instructions about obscure topics in order to trigger hallucinations.

That it would just come up with random false facts about something as common and "basic" as the history of the Greek language sounds like a made-up issue.

Re: "AI", students, and epistemic crisis

#40

Post by lionkor »

par1970 wrote: post #21
lionkor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Something that is taught to be a self-evident or universally recognized truth
Post reply on HN