41–50 of 50 posts
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.
But having a tutor or teacher to actually interact with have also important benefits. It is not a lesson for a class of who knows how much students, but for you and you in particular. You may be missing some other student questions, but to have freedom to ask, without social pressure, without worrying about time, or even for old topics that may or not be related to the current one, may be a big improvement.
The next question we should ask ourselves is what would be now the role of libraries, teachers and teaching institutions in this landscape. What are the cracks in this new teaching model that they can adapt to to fulfill?
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…
> who is using ChatGPT and who is thinking for themselves. 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.
Some of the use-cases mentioned would mean FERPA applies: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/faq/i-want-use-online-tool-or-... Surprised FERPA wasn't mentioned explicitly. At least this version doesn't use the data for training, but I shudder to think of all the college administrators dumping student information into their personal ChatGPT accounts right now...
Seemingly, edu solutions from big tech are developed without ever asking input from actual educators. They usually come from a "I went to school, so I know what educators need" perspective, which is often wrong. The offerings are typically half baked, buggy, and deaf to the needs of educators. Github classroom comes to mind. ChatGPT is apparently the next example, where none of the features are educator focused, but…
That said, maybe OpenAI did this?
Arizona State University was an early (first?) adopter in providing broad access to ChatGPT Enterprise, but the implementation has not been as smooth as I hoped. My wife works at ASU, and from our discussions, it’s clear that the rollout has been somewhat disorganized. The promotional announcements led me to expect "ChatGPT 4 for all!" Yet, the distribution of access has been ambiguous, leaving many staff members, in…
> “Integrating OpenAI's technology into our educational and operational frameworks accelerates transformation at ASU. We're collaborating across our community to harness these tools, extending our learnings as a scalable model for other institutions.”
LexisNexis, Westlaw, and Bloomberg all use the same tactic with law schools. (Legal research search engines) Provide free usage to students, so they get used to using it indiscriminately, then they charge on a usage basis for non-students depending on the plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seemingly, edu solutions from big tech are developed without ever asking input from actual educators. They usually come from a "I went to school, so I know what educators need" perspective, which is often wrong. The offerings are typically half baked, buggy, and deaf to the needs of educators. Github classroom comes to mind. ChatGPT is apparently the next example, where none of the features are educator focused, but…
Agreed. I'm biased because my wife is an educator, but so so SO many edtech companies would benefit from hiring former teachers into business development/product roles instead of only hiring Ed.D/Ph.Ds for those roles, many of whom have limited field experience. That said, maybe OpenAI did this?
Why couldn't OpenAI get a quote from some professor using their OpenAI offering in their classroom, saying how it benefits their students. All I learned from Kyle is that he's using ChatGTP to "harness", "collaborate", "transform", and "integrate"... completely meaningless to me.
Makes you realize this website is not targeted to appeal to educators, but University CIOs.
Actually, for the heck of it I asked ChatGPT to write me marketing copy for a website for ChatGPT Edu, and it did a better job centering educators and students compared to what OpenAI released here: https://chatgpt.com/share/bd581724-273c-40d5-aa55-0cd0e4d88a...
Some of the use-cases mentioned would mean FERPA applies: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/faq/i-want-use-online-tool-or-... Surprised FERPA wasn't mentioned explicitly. At least this version doesn't use the data for training, but I shudder to think of all the college administrators dumping student information into their personal ChatGPT accounts right now...
Seemingly, edu solutions from big tech are developed without ever asking input from actual educators. They usually come from a "I went to school, so I know what educators need" perspective, which is often wrong. The offerings are typically half baked, buggy, and deaf to the needs of educators. Github classroom comes to mind. ChatGPT is apparently the next example, where none of the features are educator focused, but…
Change it to "I knew that educators would need if they were like me", and it (surprisingly) gets mostly correct. For example in the past, I volunteered to prepare talented pupils in math for studying this subject at a university, so I do claim that I have some experience in education.
I think I know some things about what would make sense for educating children, but the kind of people who actually become educators are a quite different kind of breed than me. So educators would likely not like my ideas (they don't fit the political climate and/or desired style of education), even though I think they do make sense (and would dogfood them). The latter is evidenced by the fact that I was told by work colleagues that they would love my ideas to be put into a textbook form. Thus, my ideas seem to fall on much fertile ground for an audience of gifted parents who would love for their children to become gifted, too, than for people who become educators.
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.
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.
You mean like teaching how to get Google to solve my math problems for me, instead of teaching me the logic behind the problems - what use do I have for theoretical calculus? 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 mat…
Like my Dad uses multiple apps to get the information he wants for all the sports games that happen during the week, and no app is perfect. If he could prompt something to make a UI with the relevant info he wants displayed like he wants, he would be so much happier. It's little things like that that will make software way more customized and useful for people.
I think there's a lot of hype on AGI and they'll be more, but just as another tool in the programmer's toolbox, LLMs will allow better product to be developed (if people learn how to prompt and think with LLMs in mind vs dismissing all of it when they see a mistake)..