FartOfGenius t1_j0kd3n5 wrote
Reply to comment by Top_Net_123 in What Plato Would Say About ChatGPT: Zeynep Tufekci argues that A.I. can be a learning tool for schools with enough teachers and resources to use it well. (The New York Times) by darrenjyc
I haven't had much experience with the technology but surely it isn't that easy to get a good result, from what I've seen the AI spits out obvious BS if only infrequently and such problems would be easily seen by any careful teacher and penalized with a bad grade. Why not just make it permissible for everyone? That way it's fair game to use it, the playing field is even, and students who genuinely care are still going to turn out much more thoroughly proofread work than someone who submits lousy copy pasted material
dmarchall491 t1_j0liyh1 wrote
Using AI to write essays or complete assignments has the potential to undermine the educational process. It's important for students to develop their own writing skills and demonstrate their understanding of the material. While using AI may save time, it does not provide the opportunity for students to learn and grow as writers and critical thinkers.
Additionally, relying on AI to complete assignments can lead to a lack of original thought and creativity. It is important for students to be able to express their own ideas and perspectives in their work, rather than simply regurgitating information that they have obtained from an AI.
Furthermore, while AI may be able to produce coherent text, it may not fully understand the context or meaning of the words it is using. This can result in the production of nonsensical or factually incorrect information, which could be detrimental to the student's grades and overall learning experience.
Overall, while AI may be able to assist with certain aspects of writing, it is not a replacement for the hard work and critical thinking that is required to produce high quality academic work.
-- written by chatGPT
theyreinthebaghutch t1_j0ldiyf wrote
You should go check out chat gp. It is leaps and bounds beyond anything I have seen before. Honestly I'm blown away by the natural sound and well reasoned thinking it shows.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0kg7v0 wrote
Yeah, obviously it needs to be included in lessons. However, in exams it’d become problematic. I asked the AI about panopticon structures in Focault’s theories and it spat out a perfectly fine definition.
FartOfGenius t1_j0kggm8 wrote
Aren't exams usually held in person? And for things like term papers can the AI really structure everything perfectly to have thesis statements, arguments and evidence laid out and cited properly?
Top_Net_123 t1_j0kgp7x wrote
Yes, in person. But people are using the toilets and sometimes plant cellphones there. Difficult to spot this. I work as a teacher btw..:)
FartOfGenius t1_j0kjw5l wrote
This reminds me of chess cheating… I think it would be more reliable for the cheater to just Google answers than to use GPT in that case tho
skytram22 t1_j0mcyd4 wrote
I recently taught a few upper-level sociology courses, and I used essays to try to get students to engage in critical thinking (e.g., analyzing and applying theories). It took an inordinate amount of time and energy grade these compared to a more traditional exam, but I felt it was worth it.
With this, though... I'm concerned that a decently motivated student could take ChatGPT output, modify it in places where they feel comfortable in doing so, and bypass gaining the writing and analytical skills that I try to teach. I would love to incorporate this into an assignment, and I've got a few ideas how, but I'm still worried about how educators will assess the "higher" forms of cognition.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0mdbxc wrote
Well you can always do oral exams or grade the contribution in class?
skytram22 t1_j0mox20 wrote
I have tried grading in-class contribution/participation, but nothing I did motivated students to participate in a class of 50+ students. I just had 60% of students with zeroes, which my department did not accept, so they told me to change my grading policy mid-semester. I also had a few students come to office hours in tears because they felt too anxious to speak up in class. I do think that taking contribution into account for grading is great for seminar classes; as a grad student, though, I'm only given lecture-heavy courses. I design my own syllabi, but when I proposed a participation-based Intro to Sociology class, the professors just laughed and said no.
I have wondered about oral exams. I nearly flunked the one I had as an undergrad—I could not handle the pressure of my professor staring me down like that—but it does feel more straightforward. I will have to give that one some thought.
James_E_Fuck t1_j0m6ucd wrote
"such problems would be easily seen by any careful teacher and penalized with a bad grade."
As a teacher I can tell you this won't happen. At least not in the majority of public schools. It's going to reveal a huge crack in education. When a teacher has 200 students the idea that they can meaningfully know or provide feedback to all of them is an illusion. They are mostly graded based on their ability to complete the tasks we give them. If they are able to fake those tasks or have an AI do it for them, they will be able to get by without too much trouble unless they do something obviously dumb (and plenty will, I have students copy paste answers off Google all the time and they don't even change the formatting or take out obvious signs) but in a system like ours where there aren't any meaningful consequences for cheating, the benefits will outweigh the risks for students without an internal moral reason not to.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0mc8mv wrote
As a colleague, I can completely second your opinion. Time will tell how we can meaningfully react to these new circumstances.
James_E_Fuck t1_j0movnf wrote
We haven't caught up to the last 20 years of circumstances I don't think we're about to start now haha.
Top_Net_123 t1_j0ow36w wrote
Where do you teach? Germany here..:)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments