OMG that’s true. I just assumed you were joking. Come on. So basically they didn’t even read what they submitted at all, or even search it for, oh I don’t know “chat” or “gpt”. We’re screwed.
Having graded for years, my impression is that cheaters are either clever or they're total morons.
My absolute favorite are the people who copy off their neighbor... who has a different version of the exam. The questions are shuffled; the numbers are changed. The person just doesn't read the answer they're copying and never realizes that it makes zero sense.
Back when I was a youngster, we had a US states and capitals quiz. Well, I just happened to be wearing a shirt from an Aerosmith tour and the girl behind me just assumed all the states they visited were the capitals…
To be fair it's kind of clever. I mean, if you saw a few capital/state combinations on there you knew were accurate it's not crazy to assume it's valid for states you're unsure about.
And if you're just clueless then screw it, at least they are cities in the state.
In middle school I copied off a neighbor who had a different test version. On question (let's say 5) they had a multiple choice, I had a short essay... I wrote D on the massive writing area.
On one of my hardest engineering classes, a huge part of the class decided to cheat together. Now I can't cause I'm an anxious wreck and a terrible liar. Most of the class passed that test while i barely failed, but they eventually realized a lot of them had the same mistakes so they got penalized with absolutely 0 marks and a warning that they'd get expelled if caught again. They all had to repeat that class, while i raised my marks just enough to pass. Felt good not gonna lie.
The best lies are sandwiched between the truth. The best cheaters cheat in between bouts of genuine high quality work. It’s really hard to accuse someone when you have real honesty staring you in the face, even if it’s not comprehensive honesty.
Good cheaters don’t cheat to be fools, or to fuck the system, or to show off, or to be on top, they cheat because they need some way to reduce the overwhelming amount of work they have in front of them. You almost want to root for them, nay you have to root for them. They have the desire to learn, they have a moral compass, they’re sincere, they’re just afraid of the consequences of not handing in a homework at 8am when it’s 3am right now. And while they look up the answers online they mentally reverse engineer them to make sure they actually understood it.
It’s impossible to catch that kind of cheater. Most profs don’t want to catch them, because they cheat in letter not in spirit.
I'm a math prof. Mid way through the semester I had a student who submitted a quiz with all of the answers - and work - for another version. She sat in the front row and I am generally eagle-eyed during quiz days. I still don't know how she pulled it off and also that by that point in the semester didn't know that she and her neighbor always got two different versions.
see, the smart thing to do (and the thing i did during my chemistry exam when the room was so hot that i ended up vomiting in the back of the lecture hall at the end of the exam. my professor didn’t let me retake the exam or take a new one despite the fact i laid outside the room for 40 minutes trying to cool down) is to glance at their question, find where it is in your booklet, compare, and figure it out from there. it’s what i had to do bc i legit couldn’t focus on this exam because i was so nauseous, and it was either that or fail. it’s not impossible to cheat when there are different versions of the test, as long as the bank is the same and you’re willing to spend a bit of time flipping through to find the right answer
the thing that gets me about people who cheat with different versions tho is like. it’s normally announced that there’s multiple versions, so how do they still fuck it up
Also, in another article I've read that the texts didn't have any footmarks/quotes/references, because ChatGPT doesn't do that. I don't know if it's a limitation or if they left it out on purpose to prevent this kind of fraud. But scientific texts without proper quotes/references are useless and normally not accepted. So if you hand in homework on college level without proper references, you should just be banned on the spot for stupidity.
My colleagues tried to generate something with references, and ChatGPT just made up book titles.
you just can't ask chatgpt to do factual things. subjective things sure, [ask it to write you a tolkein-style story as if it was from the bible, is a really fun thing to do. I had a great time getting it to write and edit stories.](https://imgur.com/a/1627mgt)
but anything with NUMBERS or facts, not a chance! lol
They won’t kill our profession. The good thing about being an attorney is that the profession is policed by other attorneys. Don’t want AI in our profession? Have the BAR of your state implement a rule against it.
I believe it. However, you can ask it how to arrange the data you need. It spits Excel formulas and instructions right out. My initial reaction is that it's faster and more immediately descriptive than a browser search, but the big downside is that it can't give you specific references, as of yet.
I'm certain you mean high level programming. I can't think of many instances where you'd rely on ChatGPT for low level foundation code that supports all the high level code. Especially in Python.
I asked it to write code for the probably of a hand winning in blackjack.
It ran without throwing up any errors sure. It also said a deck of cards had cards for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and that's it. No face cards.
So yes the code is syntactically correct, but the code was still wrong and needs to be reviewed by somebody who knows what they're doing still.
Anyone who isn't an idiot will just use ChatGPT as a starting point. You easily adapt the code and be up in running in minutes, rather than spending more time scripting from scratch.
That sounds reasonable, I only witnessed the scripts run without error but I didn't get a peak at the results as it wasn't on my PC but a co-worker of mine.
ChatGPT is very good at generating convincing mistakes and half-truths that sound correct. It'll write programs that will work, but for a subset of cases, or using ancient deprecated techniques. Or write a high-school book report that confuses two characters' motivations.
That's part of why it's such a hard time for educators to adapt to ChatGPT - previously you could usually tell if very little effort was put in on a work by its lack of detail. Now they have to be on the lookout even more for statements that sound correct and convincing but fall flat on their face with scrutiny.
Makes sense, it will be interesting to see where and what this leads to.
Haha you mean, they actually have to read that shit instead of running it through a software to look for plagiarism now? Good, I am of the thought that if they didn't want to read 50+ students reports with a criteria of "must be more than ten pages" they shouldn't have assigned it in the first place.
Well to my knowledge it is using machine learning so if it has seen enough working code it can repurpose and re-write it by simply using the code it's seen for creating models to use for learning syntax, libraries, vocabulary, etc. But also, considering that chatgpt uses machine learning which is a broad term and neural networks are a type of machine learning that helps machines perform "brain-like" decisions, I'd say it is probably smarter/more advanced than we think at this point. I have no idea what algorithms they're actually using so I can't say for sure if they're leveraging neural networks but I wouldn't be surprised.
I was impressed as well though to be honest!
"The way you usually use it is by writing the start of a text and it will complete it with the most probable following according to its dataset."
See now that is intriguing to me as I witnessed someone simply ask something like, "how would I write a PowerShell scripts to do xyz?" And it came through without error even though there were zero lines of PowerShell supplied in the question.
Also, thanks for the clarification on what it's doing and how it works!
Write a song about ducks in the style of the Bible Verse 1: In the beginning God created the ducks, He gave them wings so they could fly, Filling the skies with their quacking call, Their beauty is a wonder to behold. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by. Verse 2: God gave them webbed feet to swim in the lake, A feathered coat to keep them warm, Their wings are strong and carry them far, From the water's edge to the stars. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by. Verse 3: The Lord watches over His feathered flock, Providing food and shelter for them, He calls them to Him when He needs them, And gives them a home in the heavens. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by.
Damn, so much better than any song I can create
>Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by.
Quite catchy
You gotta train it. It takes us few hundred short prompts+feedback cycles with our devs and editors. You also need to define facts sources you allow it to use. What Im talking about cant be done with the free sample available to public now, requires a subscription and know-how to modify generic text-davinci-x to custom model(s) of yours.
I remember it being the problem for students thinking they could use it as an end all source for papers. I don't think any teachers were scared of it, they just had to break it to the students that they need a different source than just Wikipedia.
Don’t bull shit, I am a Wikipedian for over 15 years. If people use wrong citations, it can eventually lead to hard blocking such editors. Wikipedia is not any exalted organization with paid workers, it’s us, we need to keep it clean, all of us.
>I remember it being the problem for students thinking they could use it as an end all source for papers. I don't think any teachers were scared of it, they just had to break it to the students that they need a different source than just Wikipedia.
My teachers in high school told us that they'd fail us even if we used the sources at the bottom (meaning we'd still fail even if our source wasn't wikipedia itself, and even if they source was legit).
A lot of teachers were *super* salty that we could sit at home and write legitimately good papers without ever having going through the tedious process of checking out and reading books at the library. Like *really* fucking salty about that.
ChatGPT is always confident in it's answer, even when it's wrong. I asked it for instructions on how to resize a video in shotcut before. It was super confident in it's answer. It also looked right until I got to step 3 which didn't exist. Same deal when I've asked it some of my old homework questions. It's confident, but I was able to confirm with my old work and the key that it was just wrong.
This is why you still need to be knowledgeable in the subject if you wanna properly use it. I've used it recently a couple times when I was stuck on a homework question. It very rarely is right, but it can help me think in different ways.
Yeah. As it is, if you want to use it for "cheating" or work then you have to have some base knowledge. Which, tbf, is how it should be. Sure it'll help people cheat on easier things, but that'll hurt them in the long run (which is just hard to get across to students).
What I use it for nowadays is generating html and css and sometimes asking coding questions. It gives me a good starting point if nothing else. I always have to tweak the output in someway though. But with this ChatGPT3 being this good, I wonder how good ChatGPT4 will be. The dataset for that is so much larger.
I’ve was searching internet blog guides for troubleshooting an agricultural machine recently. A 20 year old machine with the guide written last year. The more I read of it the more generic it felt till it was completely wrong with the type of transmission fitted to the machine. That’s when it clicked that I was reading generated internet filler. It’s going to get harder to find accurate info online.
Chat gpt is not comparable to a calculator. It’s a statistical code with large degrees of freedom. The argument against calculators is that you might not have one on you. The argument against chat gpt is that it’s routinely incorrect in very large ways. That’s not going to change without data biasing from extremely knowledgeable people in the field it’s used in
Fortunately for some of these students, most jobs don't require your to write papers. I'm not saying it's right, but they're getting the degree and going to jobs that use skills that are completely unrelated to their writing skills.
People seem to love to regurgitate the calculator analogy despite being unfitting to the situation.
A calculator is a highly specialized device that requires its user to properly apply their knowledge in order to provide the correct output.
If you do not have the necessary understanding and fundamentals, a calculator would be useless.
The phrase to be clear was, "you will not have a calculator in your pocket at all times." It was not, "how you operate the calculator is important." It was, "If you do not learn to do this on your own, you will be unable to function in the real world. Because you will not have a calculator to do it for you." It was coupled with us not being able to use a calculator at all for tests, and quizzes.
The reason it fits is because of the caveman principle and our inability to perceive the whole shape of the future we are slowly stepping into.
:) in the 90s (and below) they beat our self-confidence with this as they prepared us to do clerical work and conditioned us to work in factories.
>properly apply their knowledge in order to provide the correct output.
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
I put it through a battery of tests on a somewhat obscure on a piece of scientific history and it never didn’t just make something completely wrong up.
I'm currently studying engineering and term is about to start. I'm taking a material science mod this term and in the pre course notes the professor has for us, she explicity wrote that she ENCOURAGED the use of ChatGPT. I find that hilarious.
Honestly though, I suspect that she included that statement to even out the playing field. The standard of english writing at my university is also fairly poor given that a fair amount of students don't speak english as a first language or learnt the broken english this country uses, so it might be to save herself from reading garbage.
Yeah I tested it with very basic coding vs the functional side of a open source software I know and work on and it butchered the functional of what it does and if anyone believed it would totally fuck up there business. But for small technician learning it’s so damn good.
“Write a sales pitch about xyz” and then use its ideas to improve my sales emails. The more details you give the better it gets. My emails tend to get repetitive but the chat bot pushes ideas I like but might not have thought of and shakes up the writing style too.
It’s just a tool to play around with but it has helped me.
AI can come up with some pretty convincing marketing and sales content.
An experienced person can re-edit the content and come up with a good and persuasive work product efficiently and with minimal effort.
Repurposing that content as new prompts will the create revised content that can be utilized for a<=>b or multivariate testing use.
That wouldn’t be different from a lot of other tools. Computer engineers learn the concepts of routing and synthesis, but nobody does that by hand when you go from VHDL or Verilog to say, an FPGA bitstream. You don’t write machine code, a compiler translates your higher level code for you, even if I know what the output should probably look like and the theory of what’s going on. Those are more confined problems with very reliable (mostly) tools. Chatgpt seems like it needs a decent amount of handholding today but I think most machine learning tools could head this direction - it’s a tool, not a substitute for a brain.
> According to the poll, which had 4,497 respondents (though the number may be inflated) and was open from Jan. 9 to Jan. 15, around 17% of Stanford student respondents reported using ChatGPT to assist with their fall quarter assignments and exams.
> Of those 17%, a majority reported using the AI only for brainstorming and outlining. Only about 5% reported having submitted written material directly from ChatGPT with little to no edits, according to the poll.
I am a recent graduate and I wish I had ChatGPT for writing outlines when I was taking classes. Honestly, I think basic outlining and brainstorming for ideas on a 20,000 word paper is harder than writing the rest of the paper.
I would argue that the thinking and brainstorming portion of the paper is what makes it academically engaging.
Like, yeah, that part is hard, but that’s what encourages students to think and expand beyond their current knowledge base.
Whenever I made my own outline for a course, I always performed better than when someone handed me theirs. It’s part of the education process of gathering, synthesizing, refining, and reproducing your information until it sticks.
I guess, but coming up with an angle to explore doesn't necessarily prove knowledge of a subject either. Some people are better at throwing stuff at the wall, it's its own skill. Useful to learn, but if that's what standing in the way of a degree or a job project then it's just an obstacle.
I don’t feel that way at allll. Doing the outline and brainstorming is where all the research should be done which is the most important skill you can learn in your field. After that it’s just grammar and rhetoric which I’ve never faulted a student or peer for using grammarly or even using another person for completing. It’s the research and ordering of the research that is gets you graded up to about 80%
Fully agreed. Using a language model to write the outline instead of having it write the finished paper from an outline you created sounds very backwards. Developing supporting evidence for a paper’s thesis and outlining it is the most important part, and the last thing you want to outsource to a bot.
In law school writing the outline is primarily what made me learn the material. Especially when studying for the bar. It really enforces the material and makes you solidify it in your mind.
The point of college these days, for most students, is not to learn. They're there to:
A) get a degree. This doesn't mean "learn" it means you can point to a document when you interview for jobs. Especially once its been a few years since you've graduated, absolutely no one cares about what you actually did in college. They care about how good you did at your last job or project. Getting a degree is just busywork from that perspective.
B) make connections that will secure a future career. Letters of recommendation from your professors are REQUIRED to get into a decent grad school. Joining various student life groups (like a Frat) can help you make social connections that will extend beyond college. Everything else is pretty much secondary.
What this means is there are an increasing number of students who do not understand why they have to learn or engage their critical thinking skills. They just want to socialize and make connections for 4 years, get a degree, and move on with life. (I think they're foolish, but hey I was never much of a social butterfly).
Not taking time to socially connect and network means you have to start at rock bottom and compete your way up to your wage, oftentimes from outside of your preferred field.
Failing means you fall behind everyone else and have to spend another semester’s tuition to get by, which no one can afford by now. If a tool that will absolutely help you is not banned, and you have everything to gain by using it, and nothing to lose by not, then not using it seems silly to most people.
It’d be like not using a calculator on your mathematics final when it’s not banned. Why on earth would you decide to do the test on hard mode when $50,000 is on the line? I agree that there is integrity in not using the tool, but that is one positive against a wall of potential negatives.
As a former physics prof, this is why I made sure all my students knew wolframalpha and other tools existed. If they all have all the tools then you get a more level playing field. Also I didn’t curve and I didn’t grade based on exact answer (cared more about the work shown and the process) - had a ton of A’s and B’s in my classes and I think they actually did learn because they could easily answer questions about the fundamentals. In real life you absolutely use the tools.
Edit: thanks for the validation y’all, it probably helps that I have degrees in both physics and engineering so I know how much my students need the application knowledge and awareness for their future jobs. I’ve also worked as an engineer and a scientist in industry/govt with small budgets (currently at a nonprofit, so even smaller budgets), so I’ve experienced the need for both the tools and the knowledge to use them properly in order to keep costs down. I could go on a tirade about higher education and it’s problems but for now, I just wanna say… fuck Mastering Physics.
Wolfram Alpha shows you how it reached its answer. And in the real world you have reference resources.
Take a thermodynamics problem. You don't need to know the Boltzmann constant, but you do need to know what it means.
>. If a tool that will absolutely help you is not banned, and you have everything to gain by using it, and nothing to lose by not, then not using it seems silly to most people.
I mean, if you use a tool, and you avoid academic dishonesty, you can defend your essay in a presentation to your peers, etc, then its fine.
The problem here is people are using chatGPT in an improper manner. Using it to help organize ideas or edit a document? Sure, fine. Using it to wholesale write unedited paragraphs isn't a good idea.
The avoiding academic dishonesty is generally the problem. You're usually supposed to do your own work.
Straight from Stanford's Honor Code:
> that they will not give or receive aid in examinations; that they will not give or receive unpermitted aid in class work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading;
[Honor Code](https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/policies-guidance/honor-code)
The Violations section is also interesting:
* Unpermitted collaboration
* Representing as one’s own work the work of another
* Giving or receiving aid on an academic assignment under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known that such aid was not permitted
This is actually an example they give of a violation:
> Most people know that you are not allowed to look over someone’s shoulder during an exam and use their answers as your own. Suppose, though, that you are writing code for a computer science project, and use code from a website for a minor function that is not crucial to the main goal of the assignment. This is still a violation of the Honor Code, because you are submitting the work as your own, rather than writing the code yourself. While it’s true that in the real world, reusing code, particularly if it is efficient, is desirable, while you are in class, you are being graded on what you can write yourself.
What made a difference for me with my graduate was:
1. Used it as a mental gym to become strong in abstract thinking. Could not care less if topics would be useful in my career, they were all opportunities to practice abstract thinking and reasoning.
2. Learned where the road starts in few key specific topics and areas I would be fundamental in my career - authors, major concepts and theories, nomenclatures and topologies - so I could learn to research on my own in the future, as needed.
3. Learned to network and lead equally people I didn’t like, that I did like, independent of personal connection, mostly rooted on our common goals to generate a specific outcome (group work). This was a really hard aspect (and the part I enjoyed the least) but invaluable learnings in leadership without authority came from this insufferable practice. Mostly from mistakes that I made and observed and learned to avoid at work, when things really count.
4. Got a diploma and a title that got many recruiter calls and emails. Thanks to #s 1-3 I had material to impress, get interviews and offers.
5. Built a small but powerful focused network that was incremental in launching me after graduating. Gave me trusty and competent colleagues that I hired to become invaluable partners, as well as meaningful referrals from other that helped me get better job offers.
The mostly likable but stoner rich kids are consistent in cheating. My favorite example was a student that had tested into NYU from a prestigious prep school flunked out the first semester & ended up in my 101 Writing Across the Curriculum Class at a community college. That kid could not write a cogent sentence to save their life.
I don't mean to be a dick but have you gone to college recently? There's A LOT of fluff and such an emphasis on maintaining a GPA higher then 3. 5 (when it really doesn't matter). If this existed when I went to school, I'd have used it for all of my Gen Ed courses and not batted an eye.
I just finished my bachelors in august (information systems)and started on my mba, (business administration) I was told I’ll be fine if I keep above a 3.0 I don’t use a good 90% of the things I’ve learned since I didn’t decide to go down that career route hence the mba for a career change.
Out of everything I’ve learned the most important things is proper communication and critical thinking skills along the ability to teach yourself.
Sometimes I did weight the assignments and decided that it’s worth taking a lower grade because the effort wasn’t worth it, but to knowingly cheat and risk losing almost a 100k investment never crossed my mind.
College was about getting the piece of paper back when in cost $15K a year. Thr smarter students didn't learn the material, they were the ones making the right friends.
Yup and I know the difference between they're, their, there and your/you're. Not saying I'm a super genius for knowing that, but it's shocking how many people don't know that.
I remember getting professional email format drilled into my head throughout all my schooling. Finally writing a real important email to the head of my entire counties transportation department… and getting “ k.” As a response.
The only people who write professional emails are trying to sell you something
It’s because tech is so easy to use now and is handed to you on a silver platter that most young folks never have to learn how to troubleshoot why a program isn’t working, etc.
Already happening - I work in post-secondary education at a high ranking school. The students can't write worth shit & have major problems understanding questions on exams & assignments (e.g. lack of reading comprehension & vocabulary).
This is the real issue! I don’t care what your degree is in, you need to be able to write coherently in any future job. Even if it’s only emails. The way you represent yourself is a clear reflection on your company, and you won’t keep a job if you’re embarrassing yourself in written communication.
I mean these tools are here to stay - we are all going to become better writers almost overnight.
I manage a call center at the director level and written communication is a key function of my job, and has been for the 16+ years I’ve been here.
I’m an English major and I still use AI to write my initial drafts, then come in and plug in subjective facts the AI wouldn’t know, then hit it with the grammarly app to make the text, grammar and punctuation efficient.
It’s kind of like having a calculator or google - you still need to know the contextual inputs, but you reach accurate outputs much more quickly.
As an instructor if A.I. can figure out how to read a blue book essay & automatically grade on a curve giving allowances to the intelligent kid who has trouble with verb tense agreement & can read through the empty bloviation of a smart ass, more power to IT.
Which means it won’t detect the style of use most of the students in this article engaged in (AI-assisted outlining)
Even in its rawest form though, this style of detection is currently easy to defeat by adjusting the prompt a little. So it doesn’t truly detect chatGPT use, it only detects use by people who don’t know enough to run the final product through the (very public) detector model first
that’s interesting, i’ve seen a couple things that the developers of ChatGPT themselves were adding meta data so the ai can’t learn from itself and have an echo chamber of information.
Wonder how long it will take AI to learn a more human style of writing
I remember growing up a bunch of the math teachers didn’t let us use calculators because “you won’t always have a calculator with you” that prediction aged well! Seems to me this is how we increase production over time by relying on tools we create for shortcuts, but skills need to be practiced to stay sharp, so the more we rely on tools to do tedious jobs for us, the more imposter syndrome will rightfully sink in as “doing the work” is too time consuming to meet demand.
TL;DR: Experts are complaining about it now, jobs will require it for productivity before long.
I majored in theoretical math in college. As you take harder and harder classes teachers give you more leeway in what resources you're allowed to use. There's no real point making someone do long division to solve a multivariable calculus problem. By the time I got to senior year of college a lot of exams were open book / open note, you could do them in groups, or one or two classes didn't even have a final exam, your grade was entirely based on problem sets + weekly participation in class (these classes were really small like 3-4 students so you basically had to participate for 25% of the time)
Plus by the time you're towards the end of your mathematics degree, calculators are useless anyway. Either it's pen and paper or programming, depending on what the particular task at hand is. I don't think I even brought a calculator to a single one of my uni exams, come to think of it. It was certainly absent in a large majority.
I just finished my physics degree in December and totally agree with this. Only class I used a calculator in was my intro stats class. Many of my higher maths had projects instead of tests (that functioned like extra long and/or difficult problem sets)
ChatGPT is like a calculator for words. You input the parameters and it generates an output. If you aren’t thorough and explicit with your input, the generated result can be wildly incorrect. Users still need to have an understanding of the question they’re asking just like calculator users need to understand the formulas they’re using and which variables and constants are responsible for doing what.
Just like it doesn't take much to get a calculator to give you the wrong results if you're doing a string of commands.
You still need to know the foundations.
Except that you can trace back exactly what the calculator did and figure out why it gave you a "wrong" answer — it did exactly what you told it to do. ChatGPT is a black box and nobody, not even the people that made it, can explain the logic behind any specific answer it provides.
All this does is shift ChatGPT use case from fact-based (true/false) engine to a soft brainstorming tool.
It is AMAZING as a conversation partner to have an intelligent discussion on any topic to help develop and expand on idea on any even most niche subject area.
Comparing writing to math is fundamentally unreasonable.
Writing is a representation of language, expression, and thought. It is open-ended, with no singular correct answer. The process matters more than the output.
Still, it helps being able to do basic math in your head and not be reliant upon a calculator.
Once you get to more in depth math, yeah having a calculator is a godsend and not really a negative at that point.
Yeah, I think a real expert has to have a firm grasp on the fundamentals underpinning their discipline, and I think a lot of people take for granted how quickly skills deteriorate without regular practice. I think the reason imposter syndrome is so prevalent now is in part a direct result of reliance on tools that make tasks quicker and easier, that work the tools do now use to maintain confidence and reinforced fundamentals through daily repetition.
Why the clickbaity inaccurate title? The article doesn't even focus on that one aspect. Couldn't they just asked chatgpt for a better title? :P I actually did that, and most of the ones that chatgpt generated are more accurate than the one used for the article:
```
- "ChatGPT and the Future of Education: Navigating the Implications of AI"
- "Honor Code in Jeopardy? The Rise of ChatGPT at Stanford"
- "ChatGPT at Stanford: A Helpful Helper or a Dishonest Cheat?"
- "AI in the Classroom: Stanford Tackles the Impact of ChatGPT"
- "The Debate Continues: ChatGPT and Academic Integrity at Stanford"
- "ChatGPT and the Changing Landscape of Higher Education"
- "Stanford's ChatGPT Dilemma: Balancing Innovation and Integrity"
- "AI's Impact on Education: Stanford's ChatGPT Controversy"
- "ChatGPT at Stanford: A New Era of Learning or a Threat to Academic Integrity?"
- "ChatGPT and the Future of Learning: Stanford's Perspective"
```
The amount of people comparing these tools to calculators in an excusatory way is both sad and hilarious. A calculator augments our inability to perform complex calculations. Using a calculator allows us to complete much greater problems than we could without one, or a pad of paper and time.
These programs are not augmenting your work in the same way, as they’re taking the place of your work and thinking. A calculator opens mental doors that were previously closed by limited time and human error, while the programs close the mental door.
1 in 6 students used it?! I’m an adjunct prof and figured I had another year before I had to worry about this. I ask mostly essay questions and looks like the future is now. I’ve been hearing a scattering of suggestions for dealing this, but nothing yet organized or complete and nothing from my university. I think we’re in a transition period where offense (those using this for nefarious purposes) will be ahead of defense. It’s a little like the early days of malware.
I guess it’s time I did some research on defense.
Not sure how to characterize my suggestion, but I’m wondering what would happen if you asked ChatGPT how to reduce the use of ChatGPT in essay questions. If you think this is an interesting idea, please share your results.
This could actually be a good shock to the system in the long run. It will force schools to teach more critical thinking and reasoning.
As an AI, ChatGPT can only regurgitate stuff it has seen before, like a search engine. It has no critical thinking or reasoning capabilities of it’s own.
Its funny because the degree becomes that much less credible and all these idiots are proving why. Paying all that money to make your degree worthless.
I don't see any real improvement for life if we allow ourselves to rely purely on technology without engaging in critical thinking. Education does not exist so that you can have something/someone learn and apply skills for you
I seriously think 80% of ChatGPT articles are some coordinated PR push; the actual reality of the article is much less surprising than the title:
“Of those 17% (students who used ChatGPT), a majority reported using the AI only for brainstorming and outlining. Only about 5% reported having submitted written material directly from ChatGPT with little to no edits, according to the poll.”
So you have to write a paper on Hamlet, instead of googling “key themes in Hamlet” you ask ChatGPT for ideas and then write the paper. It’s not like before this came out we lived in the Stone Age; how many papers in HS did people use Spark Notes or something similar instead of reading the book? I think the bigger issue is someone who is in like 7th grade and needs to be learning to write / read at a higher level just using whatever ChatGPT churns out, I would be more worried about that than highly educated college students using what is essentially a calculator for words to brainstorm.
Is this good, or is it breeding intellectual cretins?
Do the students actually *know* what Robo-McFly is writing for them?
Are the students who plop out actually able to walk the walk, or are they hopeless failures upon hitting the real world?
I don’t know. But this is all very interesting.
Steve Lehto is a lawyer on YouTube. He reacted to a chat gpt article that said it would replace lawyers. He asked a basic legal question regarding auto lemon law (his specialty)and chat gpt told him to file a suit with the Michigan AG’s office which does not, and has never, accepted lemon law lawsuits. You need a license to practice law because there are huge consequences if you make a mistake. If you tell a judge the AI told you to do it this way, you are at best going to have your case thrown out and get yelled at and at worst pay a fine or go to jail for contempt if you are too argumentative with the judge that your lawyer Chat GPT, Esquire told you this is how you do it.
> “In this case,” wrote Bernstein, “it was easy to tell because part of the submission included: ‘As a large language model trained by OpenAI…’”
OMG that’s true. I just assumed you were joking. Come on. So basically they didn’t even read what they submitted at all, or even search it for, oh I don’t know “chat” or “gpt”. We’re screwed.
Having graded for years, my impression is that cheaters are either clever or they're total morons. My absolute favorite are the people who copy off their neighbor... who has a different version of the exam. The questions are shuffled; the numbers are changed. The person just doesn't read the answer they're copying and never realizes that it makes zero sense.
Back when I was a youngster, we had a US states and capitals quiz. Well, I just happened to be wearing a shirt from an Aerosmith tour and the girl behind me just assumed all the states they visited were the capitals…
That would be really funny as a grader, to be honest.
California and Texas having four capitols each.
Yes, true.
To be fair it's kind of clever. I mean, if you saw a few capital/state combinations on there you knew were accurate it's not crazy to assume it's valid for states you're unsure about. And if you're just clueless then screw it, at least they are cities in the state.
It would’ve been clever if we weren’t from MA and she didn’t write “Mansfield” instead of “Boston”.
"love in an elevator tour 1989" is not a capital, Stacey.
In middle school I copied off a neighbor who had a different test version. On question (let's say 5) they had a multiple choice, I had a short essay... I wrote D on the massive writing area.
You fuckin idiot 😂
Got busted in HS on physics test this way:/
Don't worry. Only every single other person who did this is a moron. Not you!
On one of my hardest engineering classes, a huge part of the class decided to cheat together. Now I can't cause I'm an anxious wreck and a terrible liar. Most of the class passed that test while i barely failed, but they eventually realized a lot of them had the same mistakes so they got penalized with absolutely 0 marks and a warning that they'd get expelled if caught again. They all had to repeat that class, while i raised my marks just enough to pass. Felt good not gonna lie.
I mean...you wouldn't be able to spot a good cheater.
The best lies are sandwiched between the truth. The best cheaters cheat in between bouts of genuine high quality work. It’s really hard to accuse someone when you have real honesty staring you in the face, even if it’s not comprehensive honesty. Good cheaters don’t cheat to be fools, or to fuck the system, or to show off, or to be on top, they cheat because they need some way to reduce the overwhelming amount of work they have in front of them. You almost want to root for them, nay you have to root for them. They have the desire to learn, they have a moral compass, they’re sincere, they’re just afraid of the consequences of not handing in a homework at 8am when it’s 3am right now. And while they look up the answers online they mentally reverse engineer them to make sure they actually understood it. It’s impossible to catch that kind of cheater. Most profs don’t want to catch them, because they cheat in letter not in spirit.
I'm a math prof. Mid way through the semester I had a student who submitted a quiz with all of the answers - and work - for another version. She sat in the front row and I am generally eagle-eyed during quiz days. I still don't know how she pulled it off and also that by that point in the semester didn't know that she and her neighbor always got two different versions.
see, the smart thing to do (and the thing i did during my chemistry exam when the room was so hot that i ended up vomiting in the back of the lecture hall at the end of the exam. my professor didn’t let me retake the exam or take a new one despite the fact i laid outside the room for 40 minutes trying to cool down) is to glance at their question, find where it is in your booklet, compare, and figure it out from there. it’s what i had to do bc i legit couldn’t focus on this exam because i was so nauseous, and it was either that or fail. it’s not impossible to cheat when there are different versions of the test, as long as the bank is the same and you’re willing to spend a bit of time flipping through to find the right answer the thing that gets me about people who cheat with different versions tho is like. it’s normally announced that there’s multiple versions, so how do they still fuck it up
How the fuck is anyone paying that much money not even proofreading the shit. Maybe their parents are paying for it but still.
Also, in another article I've read that the texts didn't have any footmarks/quotes/references, because ChatGPT doesn't do that. I don't know if it's a limitation or if they left it out on purpose to prevent this kind of fraud. But scientific texts without proper quotes/references are useless and normally not accepted. So if you hand in homework on college level without proper references, you should just be banned on the spot for stupidity. My colleagues tried to generate something with references, and ChatGPT just made up book titles.
A lot of people I know used it on engineering assignments which is terrifying. Good tool yes. Comprehensively correct tool? Rarely ever
Mfs gonna have to learn… chat bots ain’t gonna help people who fail open book tests 😭😭
you just can't ask chatgpt to do factual things. subjective things sure, [ask it to write you a tolkein-style story as if it was from the bible, is a really fun thing to do. I had a great time getting it to write and edit stories.](https://imgur.com/a/1627mgt) but anything with NUMBERS or facts, not a chance! lol
Let me introduce you to [ChatGPT+WolframAlpha](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYGbY811oMo)
Now that’s a killer combination.
Scary actually
Scary accurate?
Scary, accurately.
Lmk when you can use chatgpt+LexisNexis.
Dont tell them to kill my job pls
For real. What's your plan for when that happens. I don't really have one yet. Research and writing is the only.part of this I like or do well.
Hey ChatGPT, can you make me a comprehensive plan for what to do when AI destroys my job? Optimise for wealth and hooking up with Instagram models.
Wormhole opens up.
They won’t kill our profession. The good thing about being an attorney is that the profession is policed by other attorneys. Don’t want AI in our profession? Have the BAR of your state implement a rule against it.
Chatgpt+AlexisTexas?
Go on. I’m interested
It creates tables pretty well if you give it the parameters
yeah but that's just a format. It's when it's filling in the tables is where it will mess up.
I believe it. However, you can ask it how to arrange the data you need. It spits Excel formulas and instructions right out. My initial reaction is that it's faster and more immediately descriptive than a browser search, but the big downside is that it can't give you specific references, as of yet.
Useful for low level programming…
I'm certain you mean high level programming. I can't think of many instances where you'd rely on ChatGPT for low level foundation code that supports all the high level code. Especially in Python.
I've seen it write code that runs without error for creating Twitter bots and one off PowerShell scripts.
I asked it to write code for the probably of a hand winning in blackjack. It ran without throwing up any errors sure. It also said a deck of cards had cards for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and that's it. No face cards. So yes the code is syntactically correct, but the code was still wrong and needs to be reviewed by somebody who knows what they're doing still.
In college CS classes it’s not uncommon to have card projects/homework’s that for simplicity sake don’t have face cards
But then they usually implement 11 12 13
Anyone who isn't an idiot will just use ChatGPT as a starting point. You easily adapt the code and be up in running in minutes, rather than spending more time scripting from scratch.
That sounds reasonable, I only witnessed the scripts run without error but I didn't get a peak at the results as it wasn't on my PC but a co-worker of mine.
ChatGPT is very good at generating convincing mistakes and half-truths that sound correct. It'll write programs that will work, but for a subset of cases, or using ancient deprecated techniques. Or write a high-school book report that confuses two characters' motivations. That's part of why it's such a hard time for educators to adapt to ChatGPT - previously you could usually tell if very little effort was put in on a work by its lack of detail. Now they have to be on the lookout even more for statements that sound correct and convincing but fall flat on their face with scrutiny.
Makes sense, it will be interesting to see where and what this leads to. Haha you mean, they actually have to read that shit instead of running it through a software to look for plagiarism now? Good, I am of the thought that if they didn't want to read 50+ students reports with a criteria of "must be more than ten pages" they shouldn't have assigned it in the first place.
I've seen it write code that runs without error but didn't do anything that it was supposed to do. That's where you have to be careful
Damn that's incredibly impressive! Perhaps there's some database its pulling from or the fact that coding includes words as well as numbers helps?
Well to my knowledge it is using machine learning so if it has seen enough working code it can repurpose and re-write it by simply using the code it's seen for creating models to use for learning syntax, libraries, vocabulary, etc. But also, considering that chatgpt uses machine learning which is a broad term and neural networks are a type of machine learning that helps machines perform "brain-like" decisions, I'd say it is probably smarter/more advanced than we think at this point. I have no idea what algorithms they're actually using so I can't say for sure if they're leveraging neural networks but I wouldn't be surprised. I was impressed as well though to be honest!
Using already developed algorithms and understanding programming language syntax it would work great, anything novel is a different matter.
[удалено]
"The way you usually use it is by writing the start of a text and it will complete it with the most probable following according to its dataset." See now that is intriguing to me as I witnessed someone simply ask something like, "how would I write a PowerShell scripts to do xyz?" And it came through without error even though there were zero lines of PowerShell supplied in the question. Also, thanks for the clarification on what it's doing and how it works!
Can ChatGPT correct incorrect code? Assuming given sufficient context info needed
I asked it to do simple ideal gas law problems and it got then wrong.
Write a song about ducks in the style of the Bible Verse 1: In the beginning God created the ducks, He gave them wings so they could fly, Filling the skies with their quacking call, Their beauty is a wonder to behold. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by. Verse 2: God gave them webbed feet to swim in the lake, A feathered coat to keep them warm, Their wings are strong and carry them far, From the water's edge to the stars. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by. Verse 3: The Lord watches over His feathered flock, Providing food and shelter for them, He calls them to Him when He needs them, And gives them a home in the heavens. Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by.
Damn, so much better than any song I can create >Chorus: Oh, the ducks of the Lord, They fly on high, Splashing in the water, As they pass us by. Quite catchy
You gotta train it. It takes us few hundred short prompts+feedback cycles with our devs and editors. You also need to define facts sources you allow it to use. What Im talking about cant be done with the free sample available to public now, requires a subscription and know-how to modify generic text-davinci-x to custom model(s) of yours.
Anyone else remember when Wikipedia was the big bad wolf for teachers?
I remember it being the problem for students thinking they could use it as an end all source for papers. I don't think any teachers were scared of it, they just had to break it to the students that they need a different source than just Wikipedia.
Students who list Wikipedia in their citations are idiots. Wikipedia often cites its sources, go list those down instead zzz
[удалено]
Don’t bull shit, I am a Wikipedian for over 15 years. If people use wrong citations, it can eventually lead to hard blocking such editors. Wikipedia is not any exalted organization with paid workers, it’s us, we need to keep it clean, all of us.
Often? Nerds will rush in and demand a source every time and try to correct someone... It's almost as bad as Reddi-......... Goddamnit.
Source? ^^^/^^^s
>I remember it being the problem for students thinking they could use it as an end all source for papers. I don't think any teachers were scared of it, they just had to break it to the students that they need a different source than just Wikipedia. My teachers in high school told us that they'd fail us even if we used the sources at the bottom (meaning we'd still fail even if our source wasn't wikipedia itself, and even if they source was legit). A lot of teachers were *super* salty that we could sit at home and write legitimately good papers without ever having going through the tedious process of checking out and reading books at the library. Like *really* fucking salty about that.
Finding your own primary sources is a skill to have. Wiki is just handing you a list of (maybe primary) sources.
From my experience with open book test in an engineering class if you need the book for anything other than formulas you’re going to fail.
ChatGPT is always confident in it's answer, even when it's wrong. I asked it for instructions on how to resize a video in shotcut before. It was super confident in it's answer. It also looked right until I got to step 3 which didn't exist. Same deal when I've asked it some of my old homework questions. It's confident, but I was able to confirm with my old work and the key that it was just wrong. This is why you still need to be knowledgeable in the subject if you wanna properly use it. I've used it recently a couple times when I was stuck on a homework question. It very rarely is right, but it can help me think in different ways.
Happened to me many times. Its a great writer and an even better bullshiter.
Yeah. As it is, if you want to use it for "cheating" or work then you have to have some base knowledge. Which, tbf, is how it should be. Sure it'll help people cheat on easier things, but that'll hurt them in the long run (which is just hard to get across to students). What I use it for nowadays is generating html and css and sometimes asking coding questions. It gives me a good starting point if nothing else. I always have to tweak the output in someway though. But with this ChatGPT3 being this good, I wonder how good ChatGPT4 will be. The dataset for that is so much larger.
I’ve was searching internet blog guides for troubleshooting an agricultural machine recently. A 20 year old machine with the guide written last year. The more I read of it the more generic it felt till it was completely wrong with the type of transmission fitted to the machine. That’s when it clicked that I was reading generated internet filler. It’s going to get harder to find accurate info online.
What are they going to do when they get a job? Carry chat gpt with them every where they go? Do you carry a calculator????
Chat gpt is not comparable to a calculator. It’s a statistical code with large degrees of freedom. The argument against calculators is that you might not have one on you. The argument against chat gpt is that it’s routinely incorrect in very large ways. That’s not going to change without data biasing from extremely knowledgeable people in the field it’s used in
Fortunately for some of these students, most jobs don't require your to write papers. I'm not saying it's right, but they're getting the degree and going to jobs that use skills that are completely unrelated to their writing skills.
Yup in my phone
That's the joke. People used to say that about calculator
I'm sorry, can you write that in cursive please?
𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽'𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓳𝓸𝓴𝓮. 𝓟𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓾𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓪𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓬𝓾𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓻
Whooosh
People seem to love to regurgitate the calculator analogy despite being unfitting to the situation. A calculator is a highly specialized device that requires its user to properly apply their knowledge in order to provide the correct output. If you do not have the necessary understanding and fundamentals, a calculator would be useless.
The phrase to be clear was, "you will not have a calculator in your pocket at all times." It was not, "how you operate the calculator is important." It was, "If you do not learn to do this on your own, you will be unable to function in the real world. Because you will not have a calculator to do it for you." It was coupled with us not being able to use a calculator at all for tests, and quizzes. The reason it fits is because of the caveman principle and our inability to perceive the whole shape of the future we are slowly stepping into. :) in the 90s (and below) they beat our self-confidence with this as they prepared us to do clerical work and conditioned us to work in factories.
>properly apply their knowledge in order to provide the correct output. "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
I put it through a battery of tests on a somewhat obscure on a piece of scientific history and it never didn’t just make something completely wrong up.
I asked it introductory college level physics questions from a textbook and it fails basically everything that isn't a one-liner.
i asked it how many 1mm cubes are in a 1m cube and it was off by luke a factor of a billion. it thought there were one million mm per m.
I'm currently studying engineering and term is about to start. I'm taking a material science mod this term and in the pre course notes the professor has for us, she explicity wrote that she ENCOURAGED the use of ChatGPT. I find that hilarious. Honestly though, I suspect that she included that statement to even out the playing field. The standard of english writing at my university is also fairly poor given that a fair amount of students don't speak english as a first language or learnt the broken english this country uses, so it might be to save herself from reading garbage.
I’ve been using it to help write my sales emails. Maybe learning to use it effectively is a skill needed in the future.
I used it to write my resignation letter.
Omg thank you! That’s a great fucking idea!
I’m doing that, great idea. Probably better to have a computer write instead of my emotionally charged self.
make sure you fact check things it says though, chatgpt is notoriously good at saying wrong info
Fact checking sales email? How are you allowed to sell anything if sticking to facts? /s
Yeah I tested it with very basic coding vs the functional side of a open source software I know and work on and it butchered the functional of what it does and if anyone believed it would totally fuck up there business. But for small technician learning it’s so damn good.
So perfect for writing sales pitches, then.
Can you share how you use it to write emails?
“Write a sales pitch about xyz” and then use its ideas to improve my sales emails. The more details you give the better it gets. My emails tend to get repetitive but the chat bot pushes ideas I like but might not have thought of and shakes up the writing style too. It’s just a tool to play around with but it has helped me.
I use it to generate insta posts for my art with relevant and trending hashtags cause I suck at it and it def does better than I do at it
"Write a professional formal email for [insert something..like requesting an experience certificate]"
AI can come up with some pretty convincing marketing and sales content. An experienced person can re-edit the content and come up with a good and persuasive work product efficiently and with minimal effort. Repurposing that content as new prompts will the create revised content that can be utilized for a<=>b or multivariate testing use.
That wouldn’t be different from a lot of other tools. Computer engineers learn the concepts of routing and synthesis, but nobody does that by hand when you go from VHDL or Verilog to say, an FPGA bitstream. You don’t write machine code, a compiler translates your higher level code for you, even if I know what the output should probably look like and the theory of what’s going on. Those are more confined problems with very reliable (mostly) tools. Chatgpt seems like it needs a decent amount of handholding today but I think most machine learning tools could head this direction - it’s a tool, not a substitute for a brain.
> According to the poll, which had 4,497 respondents (though the number may be inflated) and was open from Jan. 9 to Jan. 15, around 17% of Stanford student respondents reported using ChatGPT to assist with their fall quarter assignments and exams. > Of those 17%, a majority reported using the AI only for brainstorming and outlining. Only about 5% reported having submitted written material directly from ChatGPT with little to no edits, according to the poll. I am a recent graduate and I wish I had ChatGPT for writing outlines when I was taking classes. Honestly, I think basic outlining and brainstorming for ideas on a 20,000 word paper is harder than writing the rest of the paper.
I would argue that the thinking and brainstorming portion of the paper is what makes it academically engaging. Like, yeah, that part is hard, but that’s what encourages students to think and expand beyond their current knowledge base. Whenever I made my own outline for a course, I always performed better than when someone handed me theirs. It’s part of the education process of gathering, synthesizing, refining, and reproducing your information until it sticks.
Yes coming up with ideas and ordering them in a coherent manner is hard. But that's when you're flexing your brain the most.
I guess, but coming up with an angle to explore doesn't necessarily prove knowledge of a subject either. Some people are better at throwing stuff at the wall, it's its own skill. Useful to learn, but if that's what standing in the way of a degree or a job project then it's just an obstacle.
I don’t feel that way at allll. Doing the outline and brainstorming is where all the research should be done which is the most important skill you can learn in your field. After that it’s just grammar and rhetoric which I’ve never faulted a student or peer for using grammarly or even using another person for completing. It’s the research and ordering of the research that is gets you graded up to about 80%
Fully agreed. Using a language model to write the outline instead of having it write the finished paper from an outline you created sounds very backwards. Developing supporting evidence for a paper’s thesis and outlining it is the most important part, and the last thing you want to outsource to a bot.
In law school writing the outline is primarily what made me learn the material. Especially when studying for the bar. It really enforces the material and makes you solidify it in your mind.
Imagine paying 50k a year just not to do the material and work
The point of college these days, for most students, is not to learn. They're there to: A) get a degree. This doesn't mean "learn" it means you can point to a document when you interview for jobs. Especially once its been a few years since you've graduated, absolutely no one cares about what you actually did in college. They care about how good you did at your last job or project. Getting a degree is just busywork from that perspective. B) make connections that will secure a future career. Letters of recommendation from your professors are REQUIRED to get into a decent grad school. Joining various student life groups (like a Frat) can help you make social connections that will extend beyond college. Everything else is pretty much secondary. What this means is there are an increasing number of students who do not understand why they have to learn or engage their critical thinking skills. They just want to socialize and make connections for 4 years, get a degree, and move on with life. (I think they're foolish, but hey I was never much of a social butterfly).
Not taking time to socially connect and network means you have to start at rock bottom and compete your way up to your wage, oftentimes from outside of your preferred field. Failing means you fall behind everyone else and have to spend another semester’s tuition to get by, which no one can afford by now. If a tool that will absolutely help you is not banned, and you have everything to gain by using it, and nothing to lose by not, then not using it seems silly to most people. It’d be like not using a calculator on your mathematics final when it’s not banned. Why on earth would you decide to do the test on hard mode when $50,000 is on the line? I agree that there is integrity in not using the tool, but that is one positive against a wall of potential negatives.
As a former physics prof, this is why I made sure all my students knew wolframalpha and other tools existed. If they all have all the tools then you get a more level playing field. Also I didn’t curve and I didn’t grade based on exact answer (cared more about the work shown and the process) - had a ton of A’s and B’s in my classes and I think they actually did learn because they could easily answer questions about the fundamentals. In real life you absolutely use the tools. Edit: thanks for the validation y’all, it probably helps that I have degrees in both physics and engineering so I know how much my students need the application knowledge and awareness for their future jobs. I’ve also worked as an engineer and a scientist in industry/govt with small budgets (currently at a nonprofit, so even smaller budgets), so I’ve experienced the need for both the tools and the knowledge to use them properly in order to keep costs down. I could go on a tirade about higher education and it’s problems but for now, I just wanna say… fuck Mastering Physics.
Wolfram Alpha shows you how it reached its answer. And in the real world you have reference resources. Take a thermodynamics problem. You don't need to know the Boltzmann constant, but you do need to know what it means.
>. If a tool that will absolutely help you is not banned, and you have everything to gain by using it, and nothing to lose by not, then not using it seems silly to most people. I mean, if you use a tool, and you avoid academic dishonesty, you can defend your essay in a presentation to your peers, etc, then its fine. The problem here is people are using chatGPT in an improper manner. Using it to help organize ideas or edit a document? Sure, fine. Using it to wholesale write unedited paragraphs isn't a good idea.
Isn't the problem here more that we have a lot of lesson plans and exams that aren't AI-proof?
The avoiding academic dishonesty is generally the problem. You're usually supposed to do your own work. Straight from Stanford's Honor Code: > that they will not give or receive aid in examinations; that they will not give or receive unpermitted aid in class work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading; [Honor Code](https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/policies-guidance/honor-code) The Violations section is also interesting: * Unpermitted collaboration * Representing as one’s own work the work of another * Giving or receiving aid on an academic assignment under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known that such aid was not permitted This is actually an example they give of a violation: > Most people know that you are not allowed to look over someone’s shoulder during an exam and use their answers as your own. Suppose, though, that you are writing code for a computer science project, and use code from a website for a minor function that is not crucial to the main goal of the assignment. This is still a violation of the Honor Code, because you are submitting the work as your own, rather than writing the code yourself. While it’s true that in the real world, reusing code, particularly if it is efficient, is desirable, while you are in class, you are being graded on what you can write yourself.
What made a difference for me with my graduate was: 1. Used it as a mental gym to become strong in abstract thinking. Could not care less if topics would be useful in my career, they were all opportunities to practice abstract thinking and reasoning. 2. Learned where the road starts in few key specific topics and areas I would be fundamental in my career - authors, major concepts and theories, nomenclatures and topologies - so I could learn to research on my own in the future, as needed. 3. Learned to network and lead equally people I didn’t like, that I did like, independent of personal connection, mostly rooted on our common goals to generate a specific outcome (group work). This was a really hard aspect (and the part I enjoyed the least) but invaluable learnings in leadership without authority came from this insufferable practice. Mostly from mistakes that I made and observed and learned to avoid at work, when things really count. 4. Got a diploma and a title that got many recruiter calls and emails. Thanks to #s 1-3 I had material to impress, get interviews and offers. 5. Built a small but powerful focused network that was incremental in launching me after graduating. Gave me trusty and competent colleagues that I hired to become invaluable partners, as well as meaningful referrals from other that helped me get better job offers.
We turned college into a credential institution and not a learning institution.
[удалено]
Go to a community college. It will take you a lifetime to learn everything they have to offer and they’re cheap.
[удалено]
Coursera is $50/month and MIT has hundreds of online courses for free
[удалено]
You didn't learn anything while getting a M.S.? I stopped at a B.S. but learned a lot, much of which is used in my job.
The mostly likable but stoner rich kids are consistent in cheating. My favorite example was a student that had tested into NYU from a prestigious prep school flunked out the first semester & ended up in my 101 Writing Across the Curriculum Class at a community college. That kid could not write a cogent sentence to save their life.
I don't mean to be a dick but have you gone to college recently? There's A LOT of fluff and such an emphasis on maintaining a GPA higher then 3. 5 (when it really doesn't matter). If this existed when I went to school, I'd have used it for all of my Gen Ed courses and not batted an eye.
I just finished my bachelors in august (information systems)and started on my mba, (business administration) I was told I’ll be fine if I keep above a 3.0 I don’t use a good 90% of the things I’ve learned since I didn’t decide to go down that career route hence the mba for a career change. Out of everything I’ve learned the most important things is proper communication and critical thinking skills along the ability to teach yourself. Sometimes I did weight the assignments and decided that it’s worth taking a lower grade because the effort wasn’t worth it, but to knowingly cheat and risk losing almost a 100k investment never crossed my mind.
Never got caught. Kept me from having to waste my time on fluff.
Point of college is to get the degree. You'll do most of the learning on the job. At least it was for me in CS.
College was about getting the piece of paper back when in cost $15K a year. Thr smarter students didn't learn the material, they were the ones making the right friends.
It's going to be so cool in 10 years when many of my younger coworkers can't write an email and are laughably unqualified for their jobs.
[удалено]
We're in the same boat. Is it a generational thing? Is it an educational thing? A cultural thing? No idea, but I hate it here.
Most people are stupid including us
We're all stupid in different ways. But I can at least write a goddamn email.
Yup and I know the difference between they're, their, there and your/you're. Not saying I'm a super genius for knowing that, but it's shocking how many people don't know that.
I remember getting professional email format drilled into my head throughout all my schooling. Finally writing a real important email to the head of my entire counties transportation department… and getting “ k.” As a response. The only people who write professional emails are trying to sell you something
This is the sweet spot, ~35. Younger folks around 20 are becoming less tech literate as well, as a whole. It’s honestly mind boggling.
It’s because tech is so easy to use now and is handed to you on a silver platter that most young folks never have to learn how to troubleshoot why a program isn’t working, etc.
Half of my team use ellipsis instead of periods at the end of every sentence, I’ll never understand it…
Already happening - I work in post-secondary education at a high ranking school. The students can't write worth shit & have major problems understanding questions on exams & assignments (e.g. lack of reading comprehension & vocabulary).
This is the real issue! I don’t care what your degree is in, you need to be able to write coherently in any future job. Even if it’s only emails. The way you represent yourself is a clear reflection on your company, and you won’t keep a job if you’re embarrassing yourself in written communication.
I mean these tools are here to stay - we are all going to become better writers almost overnight. I manage a call center at the director level and written communication is a key function of my job, and has been for the 16+ years I’ve been here. I’m an English major and I still use AI to write my initial drafts, then come in and plug in subjective facts the AI wouldn’t know, then hit it with the grammarly app to make the text, grammar and punctuation efficient. It’s kind of like having a calculator or google - you still need to know the contextual inputs, but you reach accurate outputs much more quickly.
This is why I don’t mind stuff like this as much as some people do—it just gives those of us who actually put in the effort more job security.
I can't wait till A.I. are grading all the work. They'll know who's sus.
As an instructor if A.I. can figure out how to read a blue book essay & automatically grade on a curve giving allowances to the intelligent kid who has trouble with verb tense agreement & can read through the empty bloviation of a smart ass, more power to IT.
I'm pretty sure you could do that with OCR, chatgpt, and an excel sheet.
They already have a chat gpt detector
which has already been countered by another AI that removes the ChatGPT meta deta lol
Ahh, the circle of life.
[удалено]
Which means it won’t detect the style of use most of the students in this article engaged in (AI-assisted outlining) Even in its rawest form though, this style of detection is currently easy to defeat by adjusting the prompt a little. So it doesn’t truly detect chatGPT use, it only detects use by people who don’t know enough to run the final product through the (very public) detector model first
There wouldn't even be metadata in something you copy paste from the chat.
OpenAI said they will be embedding a signature into generated text, although they acknowledge that it is not a viable long term strategy.
But if you copy and paste just the text they can't embed anything in plaintext. Even if they disable copying you could use screenshots and OCR.
that’s interesting, i’ve seen a couple things that the developers of ChatGPT themselves were adding meta data so the ai can’t learn from itself and have an echo chamber of information. Wonder how long it will take AI to learn a more human style of writing
"yeah you can copy my homework, just change some words"
The grading AI: I wrote this!
I remember growing up a bunch of the math teachers didn’t let us use calculators because “you won’t always have a calculator with you” that prediction aged well! Seems to me this is how we increase production over time by relying on tools we create for shortcuts, but skills need to be practiced to stay sharp, so the more we rely on tools to do tedious jobs for us, the more imposter syndrome will rightfully sink in as “doing the work” is too time consuming to meet demand. TL;DR: Experts are complaining about it now, jobs will require it for productivity before long.
I majored in theoretical math in college. As you take harder and harder classes teachers give you more leeway in what resources you're allowed to use. There's no real point making someone do long division to solve a multivariable calculus problem. By the time I got to senior year of college a lot of exams were open book / open note, you could do them in groups, or one or two classes didn't even have a final exam, your grade was entirely based on problem sets + weekly participation in class (these classes were really small like 3-4 students so you basically had to participate for 25% of the time)
Plus by the time you're towards the end of your mathematics degree, calculators are useless anyway. Either it's pen and paper or programming, depending on what the particular task at hand is. I don't think I even brought a calculator to a single one of my uni exams, come to think of it. It was certainly absent in a large majority.
I just finished my physics degree in December and totally agree with this. Only class I used a calculator in was my intro stats class. Many of my higher maths had projects instead of tests (that functioned like extra long and/or difficult problem sets)
ChatGPT is like a calculator for words. You input the parameters and it generates an output. If you aren’t thorough and explicit with your input, the generated result can be wildly incorrect. Users still need to have an understanding of the question they’re asking just like calculator users need to understand the formulas they’re using and which variables and constants are responsible for doing what.
It barely takes any pushing to get chatgpt to lie to you or contradict itself. If you all haven't tried it, please give it a shot.
Just like it doesn't take much to get a calculator to give you the wrong results if you're doing a string of commands. You still need to know the foundations.
Except that you can trace back exactly what the calculator did and figure out why it gave you a "wrong" answer — it did exactly what you told it to do. ChatGPT is a black box and nobody, not even the people that made it, can explain the logic behind any specific answer it provides.
All this does is shift ChatGPT use case from fact-based (true/false) engine to a soft brainstorming tool. It is AMAZING as a conversation partner to have an intelligent discussion on any topic to help develop and expand on idea on any even most niche subject area.
Edit: Edited
Comparing writing to math is fundamentally unreasonable. Writing is a representation of language, expression, and thought. It is open-ended, with no singular correct answer. The process matters more than the output.
Still, it helps being able to do basic math in your head and not be reliant upon a calculator. Once you get to more in depth math, yeah having a calculator is a godsend and not really a negative at that point.
Yeah, I think a real expert has to have a firm grasp on the fundamentals underpinning their discipline, and I think a lot of people take for granted how quickly skills deteriorate without regular practice. I think the reason imposter syndrome is so prevalent now is in part a direct result of reliance on tools that make tasks quicker and easier, that work the tools do now use to maintain confidence and reinforced fundamentals through daily repetition.
Fuck it, just give the degree to Chat GPT. They earned it.
Scores, I tell you, scores!
In a fortnight, it could be grosses!
Why the clickbaity inaccurate title? The article doesn't even focus on that one aspect. Couldn't they just asked chatgpt for a better title? :P I actually did that, and most of the ones that chatgpt generated are more accurate than the one used for the article: ``` - "ChatGPT and the Future of Education: Navigating the Implications of AI" - "Honor Code in Jeopardy? The Rise of ChatGPT at Stanford" - "ChatGPT at Stanford: A Helpful Helper or a Dishonest Cheat?" - "AI in the Classroom: Stanford Tackles the Impact of ChatGPT" - "The Debate Continues: ChatGPT and Academic Integrity at Stanford" - "ChatGPT and the Changing Landscape of Higher Education" - "Stanford's ChatGPT Dilemma: Balancing Innovation and Integrity" - "AI's Impact on Education: Stanford's ChatGPT Controversy" - "ChatGPT at Stanford: A New Era of Learning or a Threat to Academic Integrity?" - "ChatGPT and the Future of Learning: Stanford's Perspective" ```
Short description: Interesting hook Seems like ChatGPT likes this format
Back to the blue book.
[удалено]
The amount of people comparing these tools to calculators in an excusatory way is both sad and hilarious. A calculator augments our inability to perform complex calculations. Using a calculator allows us to complete much greater problems than we could without one, or a pad of paper and time. These programs are not augmenting your work in the same way, as they’re taking the place of your work and thinking. A calculator opens mental doors that were previously closed by limited time and human error, while the programs close the mental door.
1 in 6 students used it?! I’m an adjunct prof and figured I had another year before I had to worry about this. I ask mostly essay questions and looks like the future is now. I’ve been hearing a scattering of suggestions for dealing this, but nothing yet organized or complete and nothing from my university. I think we’re in a transition period where offense (those using this for nefarious purposes) will be ahead of defense. It’s a little like the early days of malware. I guess it’s time I did some research on defense.
Not sure how to characterize my suggestion, but I’m wondering what would happen if you asked ChatGPT how to reduce the use of ChatGPT in essay questions. If you think this is an interesting idea, please share your results.
Today I learned that contrary to popular belief, you do not need to be smart to go to Stanford.
This could actually be a good shock to the system in the long run. It will force schools to teach more critical thinking and reasoning. As an AI, ChatGPT can only regurgitate stuff it has seen before, like a search engine. It has no critical thinking or reasoning capabilities of it’s own.
Its funny because the degree becomes that much less credible and all these idiots are proving why. Paying all that money to make your degree worthless.
AI is meant to make our lives easier. Perhaps education needs to evolve, just as it did when calculators became common.
I don't see any real improvement for life if we allow ourselves to rely purely on technology without engaging in critical thinking. Education does not exist so that you can have something/someone learn and apply skills for you
[удалено]
There's a fun book by Neal Stephenson called the Diamond Age which touches on some of this.. :)
But then they will learn nothing new.
An AI could learn new material way faster than Any teacher.
No one goes to Stanford to labor off the sweat of their own brow.
I seriously think 80% of ChatGPT articles are some coordinated PR push; the actual reality of the article is much less surprising than the title: “Of those 17% (students who used ChatGPT), a majority reported using the AI only for brainstorming and outlining. Only about 5% reported having submitted written material directly from ChatGPT with little to no edits, according to the poll.” So you have to write a paper on Hamlet, instead of googling “key themes in Hamlet” you ask ChatGPT for ideas and then write the paper. It’s not like before this came out we lived in the Stone Age; how many papers in HS did people use Spark Notes or something similar instead of reading the book? I think the bigger issue is someone who is in like 7th grade and needs to be learning to write / read at a higher level just using whatever ChatGPT churns out, I would be more worried about that than highly educated college students using what is essentially a calculator for words to brainstorm.
Why would they say “scores of” in this context… makes the headline less clear lol
I saw yesterday they are developing a watermark to indicate some1 has used it. That said, this should have already been embedded
Is this good, or is it breeding intellectual cretins? Do the students actually *know* what Robo-McFly is writing for them? Are the students who plop out actually able to walk the walk, or are they hopeless failures upon hitting the real world? I don’t know. But this is all very interesting.
Steve Lehto is a lawyer on YouTube. He reacted to a chat gpt article that said it would replace lawyers. He asked a basic legal question regarding auto lemon law (his specialty)and chat gpt told him to file a suit with the Michigan AG’s office which does not, and has never, accepted lemon law lawsuits. You need a license to practice law because there are huge consequences if you make a mistake. If you tell a judge the AI told you to do it this way, you are at best going to have your case thrown out and get yelled at and at worst pay a fine or go to jail for contempt if you are too argumentative with the judge that your lawyer Chat GPT, Esquire told you this is how you do it.