21–30 of 50 posts
OpenAI is working the exact same way drug dealers working... give it away to students for free at parties, make them get addicted to it.
Students are now scrambling to migrate, turns out forever at Google is a lot shorter than you think.
I remember the fascination of reading through physical encyclopedias when I was a kid. Having the collective knowledge of the world in my pocket and a personal tutor for any topic still sounds surreal.
OpenAI is working the exact same way drug dealers working... give it away to students for free at parties, make them get addicted to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a class of any substantial size, it's very obvious who is using ChatGPT and who is thinking for themselves. A large fraction (often 70%) of responses will be identical in structure and content, if not verbatim copies of each other. These are the people who have used ChatGPT. These are the people who tend to do very poorly on closed-laptop examinations. Students have a choice of how much of their critical thinking…
There will be a few that can write better prompts than others - based on your confidence I'm quite certain professors all across the world have already highly graded AI papers, while worrying about that very problem coming and failing others for it.
Alternative systems (which have existed before LLMs) include at-home work being required to earn a seat at the exam, but marked for feedback only, with the exam being the assessment graded for credit.
I remember the fascination of reading through physical encyclopedias when I was a kid. Having the collective knowledge of the world in my pocket and a personal tutor for any topic still sounds surreal.
Basically for every topic about which I ask this "personal tutor" (AI models), it hallucinates up stuff. My work colleagues tell me that I should ask it about more "normal" topics, and ask for less paper references. Seriously: for more "normal" topics or for topics where quite some false answers are acceptable, I don't need a personal tutor.
I remember the fascination of reading through physical encyclopedias when I was a kid. Having the collective knowledge of the world in my pocket and a personal tutor for any topic still sounds surreal.
Had a similar feeeling with a Grolier 95 CD (one of the first to enter my home at the time); it seemed infinite.
I remember the fascination of reading through physical encyclopedias when I was a kid. Having the collective knowledge of the world in my pocket and a personal tutor for any topic still sounds surreal.
If you're discussing, say, philosophy with it, it has the potential to lead you deep into the weeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a class of any substantial size, it's very obvious who is using ChatGPT and who is thinking for themselves. A large fraction (often 70%) of responses will be identical in structure and content, if not verbatim copies of each other. These are the people who have used ChatGPT. These are the people who tend to do very poorly on closed-laptop examinations. Students have a choice of how much of their critical thinking…
At the same time using chatgpt or any LLM productively, and getting the most out of it to help you think and reason better is a skill on its own that requires development.
The only time in my life I've been unable to complete something mathematically, I was trying to compute accumulation of ROI for a shared money pool for crypto trading - I'm not even saying that correctly.
I couldn't enter the formula for the math I needed I to Google as I did not kno how to, have not owned a TI- anything calculator since highschool and completely forgot even the name for the genre of math that I was doing.
I kno that Google could do exactly what I needed tho and that was frustrating having to look literally every step of it all up
I think AI could have eliminated all of this.
The elephant in the room is that many students are using ChatGPT to write their papers. Since they will use similar tools at work to create presentations, I'm wonder how much colleges should try to police use of ChatGPT by students.
In a class of any substantial size, it's very obvious who is using ChatGPT and who is thinking for themselves. A large fraction (often 70%) of responses will be identical in structure and content, if not verbatim copies of each other. These are the people who have used ChatGPT. These are the people who tend to do very poorly on closed-laptop examinations. Students have a choice of how much of their critical thinking…
You can do both. My son's using the chatbots as idea/synonym/high-level structure generators and general tidier-uppers. I'd be surprised if he's taking more than 10% of their suggestions verbatim, but it's great for rubber ducking.
OpenAI is working the exact same way drug dealers working... give it away to students for free at parties, make them get addicted to it.