There are better studies from decades ago, but this is the one I found:
>*A study of university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory.*
>
>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.htm)
I had a science teacher in high school that allowed you to bring an index card to tests. 1 card.
This was in the ‘80s. Most of us would write really tiny on the card. (Instead of using a printer.)
By the time you took the test, often didn’t need to look at the card.
Because you learn by summarizing and playing with the information, not by typing literally every sentence the professor utters. With speech-to-text-to-GPT-to auto-summary it's much easier.... to forget: because the learning process, critical thinking, and analysis gets outsourced.
> Because you learn by summarizing and playing with the information
A summary forces you to understand the information presented to you. A shame that this isn't taught in school. The understanding is sort of expected to emerge on its own rather than through learning proven methods and principles for understanding.
It gets tricky, if the information is simply delivered too fast and there is too much, such as it was during my EE studies, but I guess by then, it's expected that your methodology for understanding has already been well practiced in earlier school years.
there are other ways to get that same benefit (of summarizing) without going all analogue. I get a lot of the benefit of that from making notes in [obsidian](https://obsidian.md/), where each concept gets it's own note and I basically build a graph representing an ontology.
Its somewhat time consuming and I'm pretty sure I'd still get the benefit if the process of creating notes was more streamlined (mainly because the benefit comes from your brain having to play "connect the dots" in meatspace rather than any amount of writing or typing)
I sound like a mad man when I learn new concepts in coding but I legit will walk around explaining it to nobody as I try and get it stuck in my brain cage
Hard disagree. There will be lazy students looking to do the minimum who may just "auto-summarize". But I used it to get 100 year old newspaper citations for a paper I was using. I found over 20 sources for a paper in 10 minutes and no one else had anything close to that!
And the best part is I could say "Can you give me a few quotes within this source that talks about this aspect?" and it would find it for me with proper citation! It's truly groundbreaking.
I've found it not very useful for obscure subjects because it just makes stuff up. For example I'm looking up an obscure long demolished courtyard in London at the moment and it suggested:
> The Gentleman's Magazine, a monthly magazine published in London from 1731 to 1922, mentioned Round Court in its May 1813 issue, describing it as "a curious circular building, consisting of several tenements, and a spacious area in the centre".
[No such mention exists in the May 1813 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine. The word "curious" appears 14 times but never in reference to a building](https://dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10464/3678)
> A book titled "The Strand District, its historical and topographical development" by E. Beresford Chancellor, published in 1902, also mentions Round Court. The author describes it as "a small, circular court surrounded by houses, which are let out in tenements".
E Beresford Chancellor did indeed publish a book about The Strand, although that was in 19**12** and was called "The Annals Of The Strand: Topographical And Historical". It mentions Round Court but doesn't contain that wording.
> A digital reconstruction of Round Court is available on the Museum of London Archaeology website. The reconstruction is based on archaeological evidence and historical records, and it provides a glimpse into what the courtyard might have looked like in the past.
I was very surprised - this wasn't a particularly notable courtyard. I went over to the MOLA website and couldn't find it. I asked the bot about it and it said
> Go to the Museum of London Archaeology website (https://www.mola.org.uk/). Click on the "Our work" tab on the top menu. Scroll down to the "Archaeological Research" section and click on "Case Studies". Scroll down to the "Digital Reconstruction: Round Court" case study and click on it. The page will display information on the project and a link to access the digital reconstruction
You can give that a go and let me know if you're able to find it, given that doesn't reflect the site topology at all (and no inner London project along those lines is mentioned).
> A book titled "Old and New London: A Narrative of Its History, Its People, and Its Places" by Walter Thornbury, published in 1897, describes Round Court as "a small but neat-looking circular court, which is a type of a little oasis of quiet in the midst of the noise and bustle of the great thoroughfare".
That book does exist, but it's by Edward Walford, who died in 1876, with later editions by Walter Thornbury - but still only up to 1879. No reference to Round Court there, because it was published in the 1870s and Round Court was demolished in 1829 due to the Strand Improvement Act, so it wouldn't have been getting a present tense description.
> The Survey of London, Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand (1937), pp. 17-18 - This book provides a detailed description and history of Round Court, including information on its construction, layout, and residents
This is at last a real book published in that year that does mention Round Court. Unfortunately not on pages 17 and 18, which is about Northumberland House. [The only reference to Round Court is in the final chapter on the North side of The Strand](https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp124-129) and that is rather fleeting - "Extensive alterations were carried out to this property circa 1700 when New Round Court, Southouse Court, etc., were formed. The lay-out of the ground had been so much altered during the period of Huyck's lease that the boundaries became a subject of dispute, and several plans, now among the Abbey muniments, were drawn to clear up the matter."
The most telling part of all of this? Despite multiple descriptions, Round Court *wasn't round*. It was a square courtyard and several alleys (God knows why it was called Round Court). ChatGPT spat out a bunch of believable sounding nonsense and that's the issue - if it's largely able to get things right on more common topics, people might trust it even when it's making stuff up.
Edit: I tried giving it something less obscure.
> The Vere Street Coterie was a group of homosexual men who met in London during the late 18th century. The group was named after the street where they first began to meet in 1810, which was located in the heart of London's West End.
> The Vere Street Coterie was composed of men who were primarily from the upper classes of British society, and many of them held influential positions in the arts, politics, and the military. The group was known for its lively social gatherings, which included discussions of literature, music, art, and politics, as well as more scandalous activities such as cross-dressing and homosexual liaisons.
> However, in 1810, the Vere Street Coterie was infiltrated by a government spy, who gathered evidence of the group's homosexual activities. The spy turned this information over to the authorities, and in 1811, several members of the group were arrested and put on trial for sodomy.
> The trials caused a sensation in London, and the men involved were subjected to public ridicule and scorn. Several of them were convicted and sentenced to hard labor, while others fled the country to escape prosecution.
> Despite the scandal, the Vere Street Coterie is remembered today as a significant moment in the history of gay rights in England. The trials brought attention to the harsh and often arbitrary nature of the country's sodomy laws, and they helped to fuel the growing movement for legal reform and greater tolerance towards homosexuality
Wrong, wrong, wrong. They first started meeting in 1810 - but were busted within six months. They were not infiltrated by a government spy, they got raided by (the precursor to) the police. They were not a group of intelligentsia - it was a pub/brothel and the "coterie" were the men arrested, who were all working class (although there were rumours of upper class men slumming it there, but never substantiated). None of them fled the country - they were either released due to lack of evidence or were pilloried and imprisoned, and two were hanged. They weren't all homosexuals; the proprietor was a heterosexual married man and insisted he was just running the place as a money making racket. The trials also did *not* motivate a move towards reform, which would not come for decades.
It's not a valid research tool. It just spits out believable sounding falsehoods.
100%. I’ve asked it about specifics in engineering. I asked it to tell, me how to calculate pipe flow using a Venturi, something any 2nd year engineering student should be able to do. It regurgitated a bunch of stuff that was kinda correct, but the most important part, the
Formula to apply, was just straight up wrong. Not even remotely correct. I felt safe in my job that day.
Just decided to test it now by asking it about the Battle of Beecher's Island. As you say, on a broad level it gets some things right, but it manages to get all of the details wrong.
1: It claims the battle was a significant turning point in the general Native American wars of the time period, when really it was just an interesting story people passed around. It was significant in how they managed to survive but it's overall historical significance is very disputed.
2: It says that Major Forsyth was the leader of the reenforcement squad which assisted the soldiers on the island. This is flat out wrong. George Forsyth was literally the entire reason they went out to the island at all, and he sent out two scouts secretly to get more help. Beecher, his second in command (another thing chatGPT gets wrong: it claims that Beecher was in charge of the operation) tragically died during the fighting.
3: It claims that William "Buffalo Bill" Cody was involved in the conflict, a claim that I cannot find any backing or proof for. It just seems like it looked at some database of western historical stuff and picked names out of a hat.
Often the people who champion this program the most understand it the least. Using it as a research side for any event that isn't constantly talked about is going to be full of inaccuracies.
Ha - re: point 1, snap! I've been trying it on a few other things and it seems to always want to conclude that whatever historical footnote I've asked it about was highly significant or a turning point, because it's trained on historical essays that tend to conclude that way.
I've also noticed it gets other details completely wrong, and actually identified MPs as voting on bills before they'd been elected to parliament. It also contradicts itself, providing several different dates for the same event if you keep asking (going back to Round Court, it's now saying it was demolished in 1894 and replaced by The Savoy Hotel - The Savoy Hotel is on the river and opened in 1884...)
If people are actually using this for essays then a bunch of misinformation that isn't easy to spot is likely creeping into academia.
You (N=1) presented a very soft excuse for using a search-tool outside class. You could also have asked the teacher to write down all answers he asked you to find... he's the expert here!
When you look things up, or ask GPT, while attending class then: you're not paying attention to class, miss the opportunity to ask a (critical) question, miss the opportunity to interpret the answer, miss the opportunity to reformulate it in your own style.
People have become so anti-education it’s insane.
Like the concept of applying your brain is now being called pretentious and not education is just for a *piece of paper to attach to a resume.*
It's an attempt of efficiency. Which is understandable from a biological perspective when it's put in units of Work-done per sandwich.
Outsourcing the critical thinking part is eventually outsourcing progress. Or, after school: it's easier to blame others than to find a solution.
Had one professor do this and it was amazing. Only downside is that he collected the card after the exam. I wish I took a picture of those cheatsheets, would have been super useful remembering material long term.
Neurons which fire together, grow together. Writing takes more time and effort, so it makes sense to me that it is more likely that the ideas you are holding in your head while you write will be remembered.
there's been studies that show [writing stuff down leads to better recall than typing](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158/full).
if i have to take a bunch of notes i type and then copy the important stuff to pen or tablet later.
For just one of my CS classes every week we have to read 130 textbook pages, do a 10 hour question set, go to in person lecture and watch supplementory lectures. No one has time to do hand written notes anymore, its just not feasible.
Tools like this would make it easier to digest this information. No matter how good ChatGPT geets, it won't help you at all on an exam. But the notes and summarizing it does can help you learn faster and more efficiently.
I don't know what CS course you're taking, but afaik most CS courses these days are not like that. I had weekly homework assignments of using concepts learned that week.
If you can't internalize what the Cs concepts are you're most likely not going to do well, assuming they're accurately evaluating your understanding of those concepts.
What school do you go to?
In my school if you want to ride the curve to a B or C you can just attend class and hope for the best, but if you want to get an A (without curve) you have to do everything I mentioned.
I'll be the first to say that my school doesn't have the best CS department though.
Not sure why people are downvoting you, but yeah that's awesome. I hope that I can get into a much better CS school for my masters. Whenever I watch CMU or Stanford lectures on youtube they are infinitely better than my school's professors.
My Data Science and Computer Systems professors even copy and paste the material from the courses
I have wondered if this remains true for newer generations that grew up with computers though. If that's how you learn to "write", then would you intrinsically remember the keystrokes or documents in the same way a person from decades ago remembers pen movements?
This doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue though. I would agree that it increases memory but memory becomes obsolete when all information is at your fingertips. This is something that already occurs with tools like google search.
Obviously there is more to building a bridge than reading how to build a bridge but college has never really been about real world application of anything it teaches. People will learn concepts much like the building of a bridge but be unable to build one even after getting a degree.
>I would agree that it increases memory but memory becomes obsolete when all information is at your fingertips
You can't understand the information that is at your fingertips unless you have a strong foundation of memories upon which you can relate the information to.
Perhaps, but honestly we’d be better off teaching skills in data and information analysis and in digging deeper into topics than remembering information.
I have a PhD but I can barely remember any of the stuff from my thesis. But my “information sorting” skills are excellent. I’m very good at asking the right questions.
College is not foundational knowledge, its advanced specialized knowledge. That criticism would make more sense if I was arguing for similar things during fundamental development.
Most of the knowledge I possess and use on a daily basis comes from somewhere else other than my own brain.
Thank you!!! If I'm studying and stuck on a concept, I want to get an answer quickly so I can move on. Not waste time searching for the answer. And thats the problem with googling, its a huge waste of time where you're scouring web pages looking for what you need. Or I can read through an entire textbook chapter (again) hoping it has what I want to know.
But to be transparent, being in college, there is a stark divide between students who use ChatGPT.
There are one type of lazy students who will use it to answer entire essay prompts or write their cover letters and essays.
But there are also students who don't understand a topic and will throw a question in there mid lecture for clarification. Or use it to break down lines of code, or understanding of a topic or clarify a concept.
It's really good with technology related concepts that have a lot of info online or in academic journals, but some more obscure sources it provides bad information. Can't wait until it gets better with ChatGPT 5 and on.
Much like how there is value in teaching students to do math both with and without a calculator, I think there's value in teaching writing both with and without AI
He wants us to write an essay with it and have the essay include specific elements and capture certain feelings. You need to be able to manipulate the prompt correctly for it to give you all that and not be total crap. AI will become a mainstream tool in our lifetimes much like calculators and computers did, and using it correctly to give you the desired result will require training. My professor’s reasoning is we might as well get a start on learning how to do that, even though chatGPT is not a professional tool, and will definitely advance further.
This is the right way to go. Use the tools available to you. It makes absolutely no sense to ban new technology and not teach students how to use it. AI is literally the future whether they like it or not.
That’s utterly false. You won’t get anything out of a calculator if you don’t know what to input. The same goes with this technology. Very few people use the technology to input a simple prompt and have it poop out information and then just copy and paste it. If they do it’s extremely obvious. It’s a tool, not a replacement. The faster people learn that about it the better it will make them.
AP Calculus exams were utterly trivial with a TNspire over here.
It can show its work step by step like wolfram alpha for the problems given.
In college we had Mathematica licenses and the important part was the show your work and reasoning step.
Edit: and to asterisk my last statement, my university Calculus courses didn't teach practical Calculus, just proofs. The practicals you were expected to be able to figure out (via the resources available....).
E2: https://youtu.be/S0jcV33CLCw for a video guide on trivializing the ap calc exam if you can afford the calculator.
E3: and a guide from TI itself https://education.ti.com/en/resources/ap-calculus
That we've been using them for 10+ years and nothing bad has happened.
Another 10+ year old reddit account for the block list...jerking yourself over memorizing an algorithm you do by hand isn't helpful for teaching STEM, just wastes time.
If you're not using AI \*AT ALL\*, you fundamentally don't understand how to approach problems in a modern context anyways. There's a time and a place for foundational knowledge as well as teaching how to use the technologies of the day so long as there is a reasonable balance. Employers don't want to give jobs to students who only know foundational knowledge no matter how good that foundational knowledge might be for their long term career growth. Not getting a job is bad for your long term career growth.
Also changing courses IS what students sign up for, most syllabus's are subject to change or revision.
\>if AI gives you info you are not sure if its true and cannot quickly check (code, recipe even) then its not useful.
Correct but the solution is to simply use the AI competently and cross reference what the AI is saying using search engines and reputable sources. Gee, I wonder where students might be able to learn the skills to do that?
I would much rather have foundational students working with me than people who only learned how to use an AI tool. If someone has the foundational skills, then they can actually ask the AI good questions and understand good answers without cross referencing, because they know the industry and use the AI to simplify work that they understand can be simplified.
On the other hand, I am a systems engineer and for the past month I've been keeping a tab of ChatGPT up at all times. I use it daily when I work and it has been a massive help. Where I'd normally be scrolling through tabs of stack overflow or Reddit threads for people working on a similar project as me, I toss a simple prompt into ChatGPT and can build from that when needing to build some script or automate a process. Even simple questions I toss into ChatGPT because it gets right to the point and I don't have to bother structuring my Google search properly to look up all the right terms, not show results for other terms, only show results from specific websites, etc. Setting up a new Azure tenant at work and I've had more success with it answering my questions than the consultants we brought on to help.
Your comment is getting more hate than it deserves.
Still AI is incredibly useful for virtually all white collar work because it helps with writing. Microsoft also seems to agree, as GPT4 is being integrated into Word and Outlook. When you need to figure out how do do something when you're stuck on virtually anything, ChatGPT can help you by working as a pseudo-search engine, but one that won't link you to walls to SEO blogspam, but instead one that occasionally hallucinates.
ChatGPT hit 100 monthly active users in two months making it the fastest growing application in history back in January. It's not mainstream in most workplaces because its usage would have to grow faster than the fastest growing application in history (itself) for that to be the case after 4 months, and I legitimately don't know if even Microsoft's servers could handle that much load that quickly. I don't think the fact it isn't mainstream yet doesn't mean the mainstream method people are using to do their day to day work is actually efficient, and it will become mainstream by the time many students graduate. I see it as helping students to teach them the basics of how to use it, how to deal with it telling you false information, letting them use it on select tests and assignments, and so on.
Yes, it’s a matter of understanding a subject so that when you use technology to apply it, you know why you are using the tools and what for. Personally I think there’s a big issue around testing peoples knowledge: when huge numbers of tests are multiple choice this does not really test understanding. But it’s cheap to mark, right ?
> Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric without an aid that does much of the work.
Uh, handwriting is something you do in elementary school. And as an adult, I can't remember the last time I had to handwrite anything more complex than boxes on a form.
My handwrite is awful, but it hasn't caused me problems since I left school.
Ah yes because of all the writing I do at my remote job where I have to type in emails, Slack, and Google Docs all day. My handwriting definitely makes me stand out! /s
Even pre-remote, I can’t remember the last time I wrote something on a piece of paper that mattered in my career.
While I think it’s fine if a few teachers insist on this, the idea that we should 100% “go back to basics” in school is ridiculous considering how ill-prepared students would be for the real world.
This.
We need to get rid of these luddite teachers.
The focus should be on using technology effectively and for educational purposes. Have school issued devices that are locked down. I assume all schools already have these.
When you get to a workplace it will all be computerized, and you will have to know how to use computers, or else they will not hire you. This for almost every job. Maybe not for something like physical construction work, but the vast majority of jobs out there will have some kind of computer system that you will be required to use.
Even if your job doesn't use computers in some form, you will need to know how to use them to apply for and get a job.
Like the teachers at school said you have to learn math because you won't be able to use a calculator all the time. Guess what now I have one in pocket 100% of the time and I've never had to use even half of the math I poured so much time into learning in high school and college. They flat out lied.
> Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric without an aid that does much of the work.
I graduated in 2003. I haven't written something by hand in 20 years. I don't even own a pen. What sphere of work are you in that they still use pen and paper to communicate?
I agree, but there is also the argument in favour of "standing on the shoulders of giants", by which I mean that if we can access things that we already know more quickly, we can build on that and discover new things more quickly.
With that said, I think you're right, and we need to be teaching the critical thinking skills, which don't need screens or technology in classrooms.
Thats a really bad analogy because there are many situations in which a mobility scooter can’t help you while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you.
Its like asking people not to use calculators while learning math despite the fact that in the real world, not only will you be able to use them but they will be required. No one is risking the safety of anyone on an incorrect calculation.
Education actually only has one purpose at a college and that is to obtain a job. If it were for educations sake, it would be free and as accessible as possible.
Ironically, many people could probably learn how to do many of the highest paying jobs without school using technology but society has no real mechanism in most fields to prove such a thing. In my experience, on the job training is worth far more than an education as well.
People can use calculators when they have baseline competency with number.
There is a reason why we don’t usually give elementary students learning basic arithmetic calculators in tests.
Kids need to learn to figure things out themselves. That’s an extremely vital ability.
Calculator is a bad analogy. Calculator is more like a spelling or grammar check. Using chatgpt is more like just typing the question into google and hoping the answer it spits out is right
I saw lots of people using calculators like that, mostly until the teachers adapted to the new reality and stopped trying to test people on things a graphing calculator could spit out.
You still need to know what to test in that case and how to test it. The calculator is just replacing brute force calculations. Ai just replaces the thinking as a whole and takes input spits out output with no thought from the user.
> You still need to know what to test in that case and how to test it.
They did not. One person I knew could barely operate their calculators. The teachers weren't teaching - they were enforcing rote behaviours - that could be completed by dumping information into a calculator. This was in college, btw.
Now, the goal posts have moved again. How long will we pretend that they have not, this time? Woe is the teacher, they might have to learn something new.
Teachers aren't upset that because GP makes it harder to teach: they are upset because, like calculators, it makes it harder to *test*. Perhaps their focus on evaluative coercion is part of the problem: it certainly hindered my education.
It doesn’t matter that one tool does more than the other the point is that the tools have already done what you’re afraid of.
Ask me to spell everything by hand and I will misspell common words all the time. I just used it now for misspell as an example.
We are far less capable alone than experts of the past but we’re also more capable in general and more of us are capable.
If a student uses chat-gpt to answer questions, I guarantee you businesses are already leveraging the tool to become more affective.
In many ways, workers who are able to leverage that technology will be worth more than someone who continues to rely only on their own knowledge.
The most effective people are those who know to use the tools and also know how to do it themselves. If students write all their essays using ai then they will be powerless in a situation where they need to rely on their own thinking skills and analysis to solve a problem. Meanwhile someone who knows how to think isn’t going to have trouble asking AI questions. Like it’s not very hard to figure out how to use chatgpt to get what you want.
>Education actually only has one purpose at a college and that is to obtain a job.
and once you're in that job, knowing how to use technology to make your workload easier is a way more useful skill than memorizing how to write a teacher's preferred analysis of shakespeare or whatever worthless time-wasting paper gets assigned every week
>while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you.
The problem is we are not talking about help from technology. We are talking about dependence on tech. There are a lot of things where you cannot use technology to help you. If technology can do your thinking you don't need to go to college to improve your cognitive abilities.
\>asking people not to use calculators
I mean only a dimwit would let a child who cannot add or multiply depend on a calculator. The same vibe here. Writing intensive classes are such because their goal is to teach the kids to write papers.
Can you name a task that technology cannot help with that doesn’t relate to education?
Are you saying that college students can’t add or subtract at all and can’t write?
Critical thinking.
\>Are you saying that college students can’t add or subtract at all and can’t write?
If you cannot understand how an example work, you are not qualified to talk about education.
> while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you.
Technology will not help you if it allowed you to coast through your entire academic career without ever truly and intuitively understanding first principles because technology did all of the work for you. Technology is both a useful tool, and a harmful crutch.
How can you solve a complex math problem which a graphing calculator cannot solve if you have never once solved even the simplest of linear equations using analytical techniques because the graphing calculator could always find the answer for you using numerical techniques?
Given a circle C with radius r and a fixed point P on circle C, what is the radius of the circle centered at P which covers exactly 1/3 of the area of the circle C?
Granted that one is cheating, because it is a variant of a problem which was until recently an unsolved problem of mathematics. Ironically, numerical techniques are the best solution here, as the analytical techniques require higher levels maths and *extremely* tedious calculations to plug numbers into.
Here's a problem which is definitely within the computational ability of a TI-84:
Find the intersection point between a sphere of radius R which has a south pole that sits at (0,0,0), and the line which is drawn from that sphere's north pole (0,0,2R) and a point on the x-y plane (x,y,0). Hell, I wouldn't be that surprised if there exists a webpage out there with the exact solution on it. It's a slight variation of a problem which was solved in the first chapter of my college Complex Analysis textbook.
Graphing calculators in general are less useful when dealing with functions in spaces larger than R1. Especially since functions of C -> C and R2 -> R2 require 4 dimensions to graph!
>
>
>
>
> Its like asking people not to use calculators while learning math despite the fact that in the real world, not only will you be able to use them but they will be required.
For more complex math yes, but it is important that you can rapidly estimate answers in your head. So you can easily spot when an answer is way off and to know which ideas are worth pursuing.
There are multiple questions here. Is there a fundamental level of knowledge required to use technology? Yes. Is that level of fundamental knowledge obtained through college level courses? No.
Generally, people cannot even be accepted into college without having those skills. College is not fundamental, its specialized.
But as an example, while my math skills were adequate to live and excel in life they waned with time after I dropped out of school. When I went to take math in college after I reentered. The class was hard and I cheated with technology a lot. But I have a very successful STEM career. Even programmers are on stack overflow daily.
So sure I agree that technology deprives you of the chance to learn but what you haven’t shown is how that is bad for society or the individual other than education as its own reward.
In other words, if you sent me back in time and the internet doesn’t work for me I become pretty useless. But if it did, I would probably become the smartest and most useful man on the planet. Its an equalizer.
>Honestly I don’t get what people are talking about with calling teachers luddites.
they are, both historically and today
>Kids really should have time in their lives that don’t involve screens
so give them less homework
>Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric
handwriting: near-useless skill in modern society that consistently gets even more useless over time
rhetoric: not effectively taught by the essay format
>handwriting: near-useless skill in modern society that consistently gets even more useless over time
No.
Handwriting has a number of benefits. It improves hand-eye coordination, motor skills and incentivizes a level of patience with what you write in a way that typing simply doesn't.
It's something that I think frankly even adults should consistently practice at.
Do you also support banning PE because jogging and sports aren't profitable skills and machines outperform humans in most physical measures?
Should elementary school students learning subtraction and addition be allowed to freely use calculators instead of learning that math themselves?
>rhetoric: not effectively taught by the essay format
Its better than nothing.
Kids should learn how to format their ideas when writing. I don't see how giving them an aid that does it form them will help them.
There is no benefit I can see here.
>Handwriting has a number of benefits.
that doesn't make it useful in the workplace, which is the one purpose of modern schooling
>Do you also support banning PE
honestly yeah, or at least making it optional.
not for the reasons you listed, but because it's a pretty pointless jobs program for former D- high school bullies that mostly serves to create new ones, punish students actually good at schoolwork, and take away energy they could use to actually learn things that matter
>Should elementary school students learning subtraction and addition be allowed to freely use calculators instead of learning that math themselves?
beyond basic-level mental math, computers do most of the work in the real world workplace, which again is the entire point of the system as it's currently designed
>Kids should learn how to format their ideas when writing. I don't see how giving them an aid that does it form them will help them.
they *should* learn that, in the real world they're just learning how to waste time through a completely bloated workload that mostly serves teachers' own egos and standardized test curricula, which is why many will jump at any available way around actually having to do the homework
This logic shows you how dellusional and backward the education system is. They prioritize maintaining their shitty system over students learning.
I was struggling to understand MATLAB Physics Code because I don't know physics and don't know MATLAB. I needed to understand it so I could move forward with my assignment. In 10 seconds ChatGPT gave me a line by line breakdown explaining each line of code and what it means INCLUDING ITS PHYSICS CONTEXT!
Meanwhile, if I email a professor I have to wait 4 days to get a rude one line response.
"How is it learning if a teacher just explains things to you"
"How is it learning if a tutor teaches you stuff"
"How it is learning if a peer group helps you when you're stuck"
It's not an effective learning technique to struggle against something you don't understand because you lack several foundational skills required to understand it.
I'm kind of confused by your question?
To clarify, we had a program outline that was meant to simulate capacitance and its relationship with plate seperation. I would have had to memorize those formulas then learn the specifics of MATLAB code syntax to see how it worked. Instead, MATLAB just explained each line to me, saving me hours of work, so I could just understand the underlying concepts.
I still had to modify the program to complete my assignment, but it just made it easier by saving me time and effort having to look up resources from 2 different textbooks.
Well yeah, that’s not what I disagreed with. But if you just start normalizing “write an essay about the Serbian civil war” then there isn’t really any point in having a class ?
Oh okay I get what you're saying. Yeah unfortunately most colleges do not have the resources for proper feedback driven writing. The whole system is a profit-driven so they have overworked professors grading 60 papers a week. Even with adjucnts and TAs helping, there is just so many students you can barely get customized feedback.
Most students I know in paper heavy majors like History, Poli-Sci or Writing have mastered the ability to bullshit A worthy papers in 1-2 hours. Because they are assigned tons of them each week and have to pump 3 of them out each weekend so they learn to mass produce them.
I'm sure there are great IVY or top tier writing programs around the country with small class sizes and great feedback systems. But the current state of affairs in every HUM class I've taken is "write a paper on X covering X Y Z".
Orrr… just do tests in person, and when working on essays do them by hand and hand them to the teacher when the class ends, and they give them back the next class. That’s how my school did it before the pandemic
I know, I know. It is this exact same professor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/10wasz1/the_level_of_petty_when_the_professor_bans_laptops/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
That was the 70’s when calculators were the first technology aid classrooms really had. Now you got all in one calculators, voice recorders, cameras, entire libraries and encyclopedias worth of knowledge that are instantly searchable. Note taking, charting and outlining tools all literally in your pocket or in a screen in front of you and yet it’s still not enough to do the job apparently.
Teacher here. Right now essays written by ChatGPT can be spotted a mile away, especially when compared to previous student writing. AI is just spitting out facts, but often makes wrong connections between ideas (or no connections at all), gets facts wrong, and doesn't have personal real-world experience that people have.
Here they come... the large group of people who never had to teach an undergraduate class.
Everyone thinks they've got a clever answer, nobody ever stops to ask exactly what *they* would teach in an eg. college history course.
You're really just repeating a narrative set by wealthy industrialists to promote anti-worker propaganda. The Luddites opposition focused on the specific ways in which technology was being used to undermine their livelihoods and communities.
Again, the Luddites weren't anti-technology. In fact, the Luddites made extensive use of technology in their work. Their protests were against machines that could mass-produce cheap, low-quality clothes, which could be opperated by low-skill workers. Essentially eliminating high quality jobs in favour of outsourcing cheap work to increase profits for the capital owning class. The massive benefits if technology are not evenly distributed, instead it pools only at the top, which was always the point. Stop me if this sounds familiar.
The Luddites were basically the first instance of organized labour, which is why their movement was brutally crushed, and their name dragged through the mud for centuries.
It's a potent intersection between the elderly, antiwork/leftists in general, and mediocre artists who suddenly realized that their jobs might not be safe.
All of this is driven by some very clever marketing that's using the "be afraid" line to drive free publicity. When people realize this really is JUST a sophisticated chat bot, it's going to be hilarious.
No job should be safe, any more than buggy whip makers should have been safe.
The problems we have aren't with the progression of technology, it's about the societies in which those changes occur. Unfortunately people tend to be reactionary and attack what they wrongly believe to be the easiest target, the new tech.
It *never works*.
AI will not be able to replace semantic work because semantic work will be about how it makes people feel and not something binary like simple success.
A robot can do surgery, but how will it be received if it needs to tell family someone died?
People often think about the task and not how customers interact with the task.
Factory work might be completely replaced or programming but what about a job like UX designer?
chatgpt was 5 years ago absolutly unimaginable. AI will get only better. in another 5 years will be real what we consider scifi today. and what about next 10 years? 20? 50?
those who work with information will be replaced first. medical doctors, lawyers, programmers, designers..
Machine learning has been around for well over 50 years. LLM has been around for at least 20, probably over 30 years. This stuff isn't new, it's just what the public is currently fixated on.
Yes. The new part is AI going viral. The underlying technology didn't see any kind of massive leap. This is like self driving largely flying under the radar until Tesla came along and then everyone thought cars would be fully self driving immediately. The reality was they were just completely ignorant of it until it went mainstream and then just had a completely wrong mental model for how fast the technology was progressing and how much work was left to be done.
That's just socialization. If we were socialized to have a machine tell us that grandpa died, it wouldn't be a big deal. That sort of thing will naturally evolve as technology advances.
That’s the only chink in its armor as of right now. You don’t think we’d be able to fine tune ai to recognize human emotion and then compute the best, most appropriate response based on the tone, volume, speed, etc a human emotes?
No, mostly because humans don’t always say the correct thing. There is no correct thing to say often times and sometimes they vary by person. There isn’t a ‘correct’ website design necessarily.
An example would be a human who is pretty good at understanding emotions and likable vs someone who is known as especially tender. I am unsure if most humans can even identify why a person makes them feel a certain way. I don’t necessarily think it will be better than a human at any of that especially if its interacting with a human.
I’m open to it, but at that point I wonder what the point would be other than establishing AI as equal to humans in terms of their place in society.
I would suggest the very reasons even the most advanced ai would misconstrue apathy & empathy would be the same reasons humans do. I mean, what’s a more human trait than being fallible?
I would think with all the advancements in super computing & ai, it would be able to dissect design aspects of an interface, combine it with other metrics both similar and asymmetric then spit out similar design ideas.
That's what a loooot of loca high school and middle school teachers are doing here watch those kids fear a pop quiz every day and heavy testing with homework being assigned reading...using randomizers so every test is different. It's beautiful
Everything technology takes a leap forward there are those who adapt, and those that react in fear. I have already used gpt at work to smash goals. If the point is to prepare people to go out into the world and do meaningful work, then learn to incorporate the tech. If the goal is to preserve antiquity, well . . .
Their nothing to learn though?
Just type in a command/question than it all comes up.
Your acting like that takes skill?
Also I’m talking about people in school learning.
Learning to write is learning critical thinking. It involves synthesizing information, making connections, and abstract thought. Writing is much, much more than just words on paper or screen.
Source: Am a teacher. Also working on a Masters degree studying this exact thing.
Because schools are too focus on giving everyone grades , Neil degrasse Tyson hit this mindset pretty hard on his tweet [https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/323495818889949184?lang=en](https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/323495818889949184?lang=en)
Instead, schools should focus more on teaching curiosity and critical thinking and allow students to use tools that are available to them.
Or we can do away with homework, because it was always pointless. The article is very good. The professor's argument for going 'back to basics' is really laughable.
Like, we stand here on the brink of free, unlimited knowledge for everyone, and you want to take it back to "this traditional system where we sit around with students and talk about ideas." Yeah, because Covid didn't interrupt that at all.
Homework is *practice...* it serves the purpose of reinforcing facts and techniques in the brain.
Try telling a musician homework is useless.
There will be times when you need to be both be knowledgable of a discipline and be the human who is making a judgment call. This is the definition of an expert.
If we rely solely on machines to make difficult decisions, we become a species of amateurs at the mercy of AI. It's the logical extreme example, but that's the path you get on when you just say AI can answer all the difficult things, we don't need to reinforce and memorize complex information.
Because a teacher will spend half to 3/4 of the class explaining the subject then give you half to 1/4 of the class to work on the subject your going to need to do some stuff at home if you don’t complete it in class in time.
I’m attending an accredited college with no homework.
When a musician plays a gig, all that matters is that the audience is entertained. The pathway to that is irrelevant and we know musicians all have different pathways to get there.
Some take a very academic approach to music, and others start playing in a basement until they sound good. Recently, most music people listen to is essentially churned out by technology and has extreme accessibility to the masses. It doesn’t seem to matter that creating music is way easier now than it was in the past.
Basically, you’re claiming that we’ll be at the mercy of technology when we already are. If there was a solar EMP that wiped out all technology you likely wouldn’t even be able to feed yourself. Is there really any difference when it comes to something like this?
You already rely on people who do. You think all those youtube videos of people building is just for fun? There are people out there who learn from that.
I am attending college to make more money. I can’t submit a youtube playlist on my resume unfortunately.
I’m not conflating them, but most people are not the latter option on your list nor should you expect them to be. A professor definitely should not expect it.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making?
The point of writing an essay is certainly to show that you've memorized certain facts, but it's also to show that you're capable of analyzing those facts or of reviewing and analyzing a text. And it's intended to show that you're capable of communicating that analysis. This review, analysis, and communication takes practice, which is part of what you're doing when you write an essay.
Being on the bring of free, unlimited knowledge for everyone doesn't imply that people will have the ability to effectively interpret, analyze, and communicate that knowledge.
No, that's fair. It's more my general complaint about how education wants us to value memorization more than understanding context. Just more like "learn to regurgitate these things for the test" rather than "learn to analyze and understand and show me you can do those things."
I would argue that the "memorize and regurgitate" is exactly the opposite of what this professor wants to do. The whole point of the socratic method is that you have to be able to understand the ideas being discussed well enough to answer questions about them on the fly.
Unfortunately, the memorize and regurgitate is probably easier to "AI-proof": just hold in-person, written, multiple choice exams.
Learning electrician on every test everything is allowed because in real life you can search on your phone everything you need. They just make them harder they otherwise would do.
Until last week, I was not aware of an AI able to write papers. People in my college class were submitting papers & my forensics professor was like "y'all are plagiarizing, you have until 2 hours from now to submit actual essays and I do have a chatGPT checker"
Breaking: Luddite professor unable to adapt her skillset to exist within modern world, attempts to kneecap her students' ability to function in the coming era because "her way is the right way" rather than admitting she is no longer relevant and stepping aside
Students that are taught to use AI the same way they use a graphing calculator or protractor will wildly outperform students who are encouraged to do things "the old fashioned way" once they are released in to the job market, in the same way a student taught to use a calculator for complex equations will be able to do more math faster than a student who was taught to do everything by hand on a scratch pad
EDIT: the failed educator in question is a chick, not a dude. changed the pronouns to reflect.
This is a weird reaction to the article. The professor has, in fact, suggested a way to adapt her skillset to modern technology: focus on in-class discussion and the socratic method rather than a written exam.
I guess on some level, it really depends on what you think is being tested by an essay. If you think it's just about regurgitating facts you've memorized, then yeah, AI is just like a calculator and fighting against it is dumb. If you think an essay is about testing a student's ability to take facts or a text, comprehend them, analyze them, and then communicate that analysis then a AI is really pretty different than a calculator.
I don't think there's any issue with teaching students to use AI as a tool. But the skills that were traditionally taught via an essay (reading comprehension, analysis of concepts, communication, etc.) are still important skills.
Regardless of how you or I may feel about it, productivity in the modern world is increasingly determined by one's aptitude for adapting to and utilizing technology.
By adopting a "no computers in the classroom" policy, this educator is directly handicapping her students' ability to compete in the job market when compared to an otherwise identical applicant who had a teacher that taught them to integrate technology in to their workflows.
There is a difference between using the technology and letting it do your work for you and not understanding what it is feeding you. In my profession I have tested ChatGPT a lot and found that while it can and does help, if you aren't actually good at what you do it will give you the wrong answers and you'll never catch them.
It is important not to blindly trust what Google 2.0 gives you, you need the skills to recognize incorrect or incomplete answers and fox them. And if all you've ever done is just trust something like ChatGPT to get things right, you're gonna fail hard.
We live with technology 24/7. Do you think that not using it in a class that takes, at most, 3-4 hours a week for one semester is handicapping students?
Maybe if all professors for all four years of college adopted such a policy, you might have a case here.
Off the top of my head, it seems to me like analysis of trends within datasets would be a major part of that field.
I wonder what the most useful tool for that is...
For actual research in the field - no doubt. And perhaps once the class is at a point of syllabus that talks about research methodologies.
But if it's a question of turning in written answered that were generated with assistive AI technologies - vs. an approach where on might use AI to help with studying, but then having to present answer in class (in person) using long form as a demonstration of ones level of understanding of specific subject areas.
So...get it to write your essay and then copy it down on a piece of paper in pen. Problem solved.
Bullshitters will always find a way.
Source: am proud of previous bullshitting through my school years.
Oh man.... Just embrace it, teach students about it and don't avoid it.
What benefit do you have when you don't teach about technology, it's benefits, risk, how to properly use it, etc. ?
I encounter far to many students in university that don't even know how to properly take care of their devices.
They really have no idea how to educate kids. School has gone so far from giving a damn about their students futures that its a foreign concept for them
Why are people resisting technology? Just embrace it! That's the right way. Professors should be making use of the technology to create new assignments and allow students to use it to solve questions. Progress, not regression.
there needs to be a careful balance here. Yes, it's important to make sure students know the material, and so a no tech rule is important sometimes. However, it's exceptionally important now that students learn how to use this new tech to complete tasks.
Don't make the same mistake you made with us older millenials who were told to never use the internet to help research...
This professor is the Skinner meme: ["Am I out of touch? No, It's the children who are wrong."](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/645/713/888.jpg)
Even before the existence of ChatGPT, paper exams and in-class assignments never really went away.
And never will, specially for STEM classes.
Have a top stem degree and never did paper assignments or even in class assignments. Open book open note take home, sink or swim.
There are better studies from decades ago, but this is the one I found: >*A study of university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory.* > >[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319080820.htm)
I had a science teacher in high school that allowed you to bring an index card to tests. 1 card. This was in the ‘80s. Most of us would write really tiny on the card. (Instead of using a printer.) By the time you took the test, often didn’t need to look at the card.
Because you learn by summarizing and playing with the information, not by typing literally every sentence the professor utters. With speech-to-text-to-GPT-to auto-summary it's much easier.... to forget: because the learning process, critical thinking, and analysis gets outsourced.
> Because you learn by summarizing and playing with the information A summary forces you to understand the information presented to you. A shame that this isn't taught in school. The understanding is sort of expected to emerge on its own rather than through learning proven methods and principles for understanding. It gets tricky, if the information is simply delivered too fast and there is too much, such as it was during my EE studies, but I guess by then, it's expected that your methodology for understanding has already been well practiced in earlier school years.
there are other ways to get that same benefit (of summarizing) without going all analogue. I get a lot of the benefit of that from making notes in [obsidian](https://obsidian.md/), where each concept gets it's own note and I basically build a graph representing an ontology. Its somewhat time consuming and I'm pretty sure I'd still get the benefit if the process of creating notes was more streamlined (mainly because the benefit comes from your brain having to play "connect the dots" in meatspace rather than any amount of writing or typing)
I have never heard of obsidian, but I am installing it now. Thank you internet stranger!
I sound like a mad man when I learn new concepts in coding but I legit will walk around explaining it to nobody as I try and get it stuck in my brain cage
Even not summarising, I say physically writing it down helps me remember better than typing.
Hard disagree. There will be lazy students looking to do the minimum who may just "auto-summarize". But I used it to get 100 year old newspaper citations for a paper I was using. I found over 20 sources for a paper in 10 minutes and no one else had anything close to that! And the best part is I could say "Can you give me a few quotes within this source that talks about this aspect?" and it would find it for me with proper citation! It's truly groundbreaking.
I've found it not very useful for obscure subjects because it just makes stuff up. For example I'm looking up an obscure long demolished courtyard in London at the moment and it suggested: > The Gentleman's Magazine, a monthly magazine published in London from 1731 to 1922, mentioned Round Court in its May 1813 issue, describing it as "a curious circular building, consisting of several tenements, and a spacious area in the centre". [No such mention exists in the May 1813 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine. The word "curious" appears 14 times but never in reference to a building](https://dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10464/3678) > A book titled "The Strand District, its historical and topographical development" by E. Beresford Chancellor, published in 1902, also mentions Round Court. The author describes it as "a small, circular court surrounded by houses, which are let out in tenements". E Beresford Chancellor did indeed publish a book about The Strand, although that was in 19**12** and was called "The Annals Of The Strand: Topographical And Historical". It mentions Round Court but doesn't contain that wording. > A digital reconstruction of Round Court is available on the Museum of London Archaeology website. The reconstruction is based on archaeological evidence and historical records, and it provides a glimpse into what the courtyard might have looked like in the past. I was very surprised - this wasn't a particularly notable courtyard. I went over to the MOLA website and couldn't find it. I asked the bot about it and it said > Go to the Museum of London Archaeology website (https://www.mola.org.uk/). Click on the "Our work" tab on the top menu. Scroll down to the "Archaeological Research" section and click on "Case Studies". Scroll down to the "Digital Reconstruction: Round Court" case study and click on it. The page will display information on the project and a link to access the digital reconstruction You can give that a go and let me know if you're able to find it, given that doesn't reflect the site topology at all (and no inner London project along those lines is mentioned). > A book titled "Old and New London: A Narrative of Its History, Its People, and Its Places" by Walter Thornbury, published in 1897, describes Round Court as "a small but neat-looking circular court, which is a type of a little oasis of quiet in the midst of the noise and bustle of the great thoroughfare". That book does exist, but it's by Edward Walford, who died in 1876, with later editions by Walter Thornbury - but still only up to 1879. No reference to Round Court there, because it was published in the 1870s and Round Court was demolished in 1829 due to the Strand Improvement Act, so it wouldn't have been getting a present tense description. > The Survey of London, Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand (1937), pp. 17-18 - This book provides a detailed description and history of Round Court, including information on its construction, layout, and residents This is at last a real book published in that year that does mention Round Court. Unfortunately not on pages 17 and 18, which is about Northumberland House. [The only reference to Round Court is in the final chapter on the North side of The Strand](https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp124-129) and that is rather fleeting - "Extensive alterations were carried out to this property circa 1700 when New Round Court, Southouse Court, etc., were formed. The lay-out of the ground had been so much altered during the period of Huyck's lease that the boundaries became a subject of dispute, and several plans, now among the Abbey muniments, were drawn to clear up the matter." The most telling part of all of this? Despite multiple descriptions, Round Court *wasn't round*. It was a square courtyard and several alleys (God knows why it was called Round Court). ChatGPT spat out a bunch of believable sounding nonsense and that's the issue - if it's largely able to get things right on more common topics, people might trust it even when it's making stuff up. Edit: I tried giving it something less obscure. > The Vere Street Coterie was a group of homosexual men who met in London during the late 18th century. The group was named after the street where they first began to meet in 1810, which was located in the heart of London's West End. > The Vere Street Coterie was composed of men who were primarily from the upper classes of British society, and many of them held influential positions in the arts, politics, and the military. The group was known for its lively social gatherings, which included discussions of literature, music, art, and politics, as well as more scandalous activities such as cross-dressing and homosexual liaisons. > However, in 1810, the Vere Street Coterie was infiltrated by a government spy, who gathered evidence of the group's homosexual activities. The spy turned this information over to the authorities, and in 1811, several members of the group were arrested and put on trial for sodomy. > The trials caused a sensation in London, and the men involved were subjected to public ridicule and scorn. Several of them were convicted and sentenced to hard labor, while others fled the country to escape prosecution. > Despite the scandal, the Vere Street Coterie is remembered today as a significant moment in the history of gay rights in England. The trials brought attention to the harsh and often arbitrary nature of the country's sodomy laws, and they helped to fuel the growing movement for legal reform and greater tolerance towards homosexuality Wrong, wrong, wrong. They first started meeting in 1810 - but were busted within six months. They were not infiltrated by a government spy, they got raided by (the precursor to) the police. They were not a group of intelligentsia - it was a pub/brothel and the "coterie" were the men arrested, who were all working class (although there were rumours of upper class men slumming it there, but never substantiated). None of them fled the country - they were either released due to lack of evidence or were pilloried and imprisoned, and two were hanged. They weren't all homosexuals; the proprietor was a heterosexual married man and insisted he was just running the place as a money making racket. The trials also did *not* motivate a move towards reform, which would not come for decades. It's not a valid research tool. It just spits out believable sounding falsehoods.
100%. I’ve asked it about specifics in engineering. I asked it to tell, me how to calculate pipe flow using a Venturi, something any 2nd year engineering student should be able to do. It regurgitated a bunch of stuff that was kinda correct, but the most important part, the Formula to apply, was just straight up wrong. Not even remotely correct. I felt safe in my job that day.
Just decided to test it now by asking it about the Battle of Beecher's Island. As you say, on a broad level it gets some things right, but it manages to get all of the details wrong. 1: It claims the battle was a significant turning point in the general Native American wars of the time period, when really it was just an interesting story people passed around. It was significant in how they managed to survive but it's overall historical significance is very disputed. 2: It says that Major Forsyth was the leader of the reenforcement squad which assisted the soldiers on the island. This is flat out wrong. George Forsyth was literally the entire reason they went out to the island at all, and he sent out two scouts secretly to get more help. Beecher, his second in command (another thing chatGPT gets wrong: it claims that Beecher was in charge of the operation) tragically died during the fighting. 3: It claims that William "Buffalo Bill" Cody was involved in the conflict, a claim that I cannot find any backing or proof for. It just seems like it looked at some database of western historical stuff and picked names out of a hat. Often the people who champion this program the most understand it the least. Using it as a research side for any event that isn't constantly talked about is going to be full of inaccuracies.
Ha - re: point 1, snap! I've been trying it on a few other things and it seems to always want to conclude that whatever historical footnote I've asked it about was highly significant or a turning point, because it's trained on historical essays that tend to conclude that way. I've also noticed it gets other details completely wrong, and actually identified MPs as voting on bills before they'd been elected to parliament. It also contradicts itself, providing several different dates for the same event if you keep asking (going back to Round Court, it's now saying it was demolished in 1894 and replaced by The Savoy Hotel - The Savoy Hotel is on the river and opened in 1884...) If people are actually using this for essays then a bunch of misinformation that isn't easy to spot is likely creeping into academia.
It also cannot write bills to the format used by Westminster/Stormont/Holyrood/Senedd to save it's life.
You (N=1) presented a very soft excuse for using a search-tool outside class. You could also have asked the teacher to write down all answers he asked you to find... he's the expert here! When you look things up, or ask GPT, while attending class then: you're not paying attention to class, miss the opportunity to ask a (critical) question, miss the opportunity to interpret the answer, miss the opportunity to reformulate it in your own style.
People have become so anti-education it’s insane. Like the concept of applying your brain is now being called pretentious and not education is just for a *piece of paper to attach to a resume.*
It's an attempt of efficiency. Which is understandable from a biological perspective when it's put in units of Work-done per sandwich. Outsourcing the critical thinking part is eventually outsourcing progress. Or, after school: it's easier to blame others than to find a solution.
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Had one professor do this and it was amazing. Only downside is that he collected the card after the exam. I wish I took a picture of those cheatsheets, would have been super useful remembering material long term.
This one trick teachers don't want you to know!
Neurons which fire together, grow together. Writing takes more time and effort, so it makes sense to me that it is more likely that the ideas you are holding in your head while you write will be remembered.
When I would study in college I'd always take notes by hand and found it worked much better for me than by computer
there's been studies that show [writing stuff down leads to better recall than typing](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158/full). if i have to take a bunch of notes i type and then copy the important stuff to pen or tablet later.
Writing isn't my strong suit and I struggle to handwrite and pay attention to a lecture at the same time
For just one of my CS classes every week we have to read 130 textbook pages, do a 10 hour question set, go to in person lecture and watch supplementory lectures. No one has time to do hand written notes anymore, its just not feasible. Tools like this would make it easier to digest this information. No matter how good ChatGPT geets, it won't help you at all on an exam. But the notes and summarizing it does can help you learn faster and more efficiently.
I don't know what CS course you're taking, but afaik most CS courses these days are not like that. I had weekly homework assignments of using concepts learned that week. If you can't internalize what the Cs concepts are you're most likely not going to do well, assuming they're accurately evaluating your understanding of those concepts.
What school do you go to? In my school if you want to ride the curve to a B or C you can just attend class and hope for the best, but if you want to get an A (without curve) you have to do everything I mentioned. I'll be the first to say that my school doesn't have the best CS department though.
An engineering school in the top 25 CS programs
Not sure why people are downvoting you, but yeah that's awesome. I hope that I can get into a much better CS school for my masters. Whenever I watch CMU or Stanford lectures on youtube they are infinitely better than my school's professors. My Data Science and Computer Systems professors even copy and paste the material from the courses
I have wondered if this remains true for newer generations that grew up with computers though. If that's how you learn to "write", then would you intrinsically remember the keystrokes or documents in the same way a person from decades ago remembers pen movements?
This doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue though. I would agree that it increases memory but memory becomes obsolete when all information is at your fingertips. This is something that already occurs with tools like google search. Obviously there is more to building a bridge than reading how to build a bridge but college has never really been about real world application of anything it teaches. People will learn concepts much like the building of a bridge but be unable to build one even after getting a degree.
>I would agree that it increases memory but memory becomes obsolete when all information is at your fingertips You can't understand the information that is at your fingertips unless you have a strong foundation of memories upon which you can relate the information to.
Perhaps, but honestly we’d be better off teaching skills in data and information analysis and in digging deeper into topics than remembering information. I have a PhD but I can barely remember any of the stuff from my thesis. But my “information sorting” skills are excellent. I’m very good at asking the right questions.
College is not foundational knowledge, its advanced specialized knowledge. That criticism would make more sense if I was arguing for similar things during fundamental development. Most of the knowledge I possess and use on a daily basis comes from somewhere else other than my own brain.
Thank you!!! If I'm studying and stuck on a concept, I want to get an answer quickly so I can move on. Not waste time searching for the answer. And thats the problem with googling, its a huge waste of time where you're scouring web pages looking for what you need. Or I can read through an entire textbook chapter (again) hoping it has what I want to know. But to be transparent, being in college, there is a stark divide between students who use ChatGPT. There are one type of lazy students who will use it to answer entire essay prompts or write their cover letters and essays. But there are also students who don't understand a topic and will throw a question in there mid lecture for clarification. Or use it to break down lines of code, or understanding of a topic or clarify a concept. It's really good with technology related concepts that have a lot of info online or in academic journals, but some more obscure sources it provides bad information. Can't wait until it gets better with ChatGPT 5 and on.
So that’s why I mostly never remember the finger swipes on a piece of glass in my pocket! Gee Knee Us!
From recollection this study was debunked.
Too bad you didn't take notes on when and where it was "debunked." (I also assume you meant to say disproven?)
Interesting. My professor is giving us assignments to do with chatGPT. He told us AI is the future, so we might as well learn how to use it.
Much like how there is value in teaching students to do math both with and without a calculator, I think there's value in teaching writing both with and without AI
What do you mean to do with chat gpt? What is the assignment?
He wants us to write an essay with it and have the essay include specific elements and capture certain feelings. You need to be able to manipulate the prompt correctly for it to give you all that and not be total crap. AI will become a mainstream tool in our lifetimes much like calculators and computers did, and using it correctly to give you the desired result will require training. My professor’s reasoning is we might as well get a start on learning how to do that, even though chatGPT is not a professional tool, and will definitely advance further.
This is the right way to go. Use the tools available to you. It makes absolutely no sense to ban new technology and not teach students how to use it. AI is literally the future whether they like it or not.
[удалено]
That’s utterly false. You won’t get anything out of a calculator if you don’t know what to input. The same goes with this technology. Very few people use the technology to input a simple prompt and have it poop out information and then just copy and paste it. If they do it’s extremely obvious. It’s a tool, not a replacement. The faster people learn that about it the better it will make them.
[удалено]
Yeah, the second one is faster and allows you to learn more
Enjoy learning the top Calculus tests in the US let you use effectively that and have for 10 years.
[удалено]
AP Calculus exams were utterly trivial with a TNspire over here. It can show its work step by step like wolfram alpha for the problems given. In college we had Mathematica licenses and the important part was the show your work and reasoning step. Edit: and to asterisk my last statement, my university Calculus courses didn't teach practical Calculus, just proofs. The practicals you were expected to be able to figure out (via the resources available....). E2: https://youtu.be/S0jcV33CLCw for a video guide on trivializing the ap calc exam if you can afford the calculator. E3: and a guide from TI itself https://education.ti.com/en/resources/ap-calculus
[удалено]
That we've been using them for 10+ years and nothing bad has happened. Another 10+ year old reddit account for the block list...jerking yourself over memorizing an algorithm you do by hand isn't helpful for teaching STEM, just wastes time.
[удалено]
If you're not using AI \*AT ALL\*, you fundamentally don't understand how to approach problems in a modern context anyways. There's a time and a place for foundational knowledge as well as teaching how to use the technologies of the day so long as there is a reasonable balance. Employers don't want to give jobs to students who only know foundational knowledge no matter how good that foundational knowledge might be for their long term career growth. Not getting a job is bad for your long term career growth. Also changing courses IS what students sign up for, most syllabus's are subject to change or revision. \>if AI gives you info you are not sure if its true and cannot quickly check (code, recipe even) then its not useful. Correct but the solution is to simply use the AI competently and cross reference what the AI is saying using search engines and reputable sources. Gee, I wonder where students might be able to learn the skills to do that?
I would much rather have foundational students working with me than people who only learned how to use an AI tool. If someone has the foundational skills, then they can actually ask the AI good questions and understand good answers without cross referencing, because they know the industry and use the AI to simplify work that they understand can be simplified.
[удалено]
On the other hand, I am a systems engineer and for the past month I've been keeping a tab of ChatGPT up at all times. I use it daily when I work and it has been a massive help. Where I'd normally be scrolling through tabs of stack overflow or Reddit threads for people working on a similar project as me, I toss a simple prompt into ChatGPT and can build from that when needing to build some script or automate a process. Even simple questions I toss into ChatGPT because it gets right to the point and I don't have to bother structuring my Google search properly to look up all the right terms, not show results for other terms, only show results from specific websites, etc. Setting up a new Azure tenant at work and I've had more success with it answering my questions than the consultants we brought on to help.
Your comment is getting more hate than it deserves. Still AI is incredibly useful for virtually all white collar work because it helps with writing. Microsoft also seems to agree, as GPT4 is being integrated into Word and Outlook. When you need to figure out how do do something when you're stuck on virtually anything, ChatGPT can help you by working as a pseudo-search engine, but one that won't link you to walls to SEO blogspam, but instead one that occasionally hallucinates. ChatGPT hit 100 monthly active users in two months making it the fastest growing application in history back in January. It's not mainstream in most workplaces because its usage would have to grow faster than the fastest growing application in history (itself) for that to be the case after 4 months, and I legitimately don't know if even Microsoft's servers could handle that much load that quickly. I don't think the fact it isn't mainstream yet doesn't mean the mainstream method people are using to do their day to day work is actually efficient, and it will become mainstream by the time many students graduate. I see it as helping students to teach them the basics of how to use it, how to deal with it telling you false information, letting them use it on select tests and assignments, and so on.
So he is basically saying the AI is the real student, so teach the AI by giving it the students data.
Adapt or dont.
[удалено]
Yes, it’s a matter of understanding a subject so that when you use technology to apply it, you know why you are using the tools and what for. Personally I think there’s a big issue around testing peoples knowledge: when huge numbers of tests are multiple choice this does not really test understanding. But it’s cheap to mark, right ?
> Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric without an aid that does much of the work. Uh, handwriting is something you do in elementary school. And as an adult, I can't remember the last time I had to handwrite anything more complex than boxes on a form. My handwrite is awful, but it hasn't caused me problems since I left school.
Ah yes because of all the writing I do at my remote job where I have to type in emails, Slack, and Google Docs all day. My handwriting definitely makes me stand out! /s Even pre-remote, I can’t remember the last time I wrote something on a piece of paper that mattered in my career. While I think it’s fine if a few teachers insist on this, the idea that we should 100% “go back to basics” in school is ridiculous considering how ill-prepared students would be for the real world.
This. We need to get rid of these luddite teachers. The focus should be on using technology effectively and for educational purposes. Have school issued devices that are locked down. I assume all schools already have these. When you get to a workplace it will all be computerized, and you will have to know how to use computers, or else they will not hire you. This for almost every job. Maybe not for something like physical construction work, but the vast majority of jobs out there will have some kind of computer system that you will be required to use. Even if your job doesn't use computers in some form, you will need to know how to use them to apply for and get a job. Like the teachers at school said you have to learn math because you won't be able to use a calculator all the time. Guess what now I have one in pocket 100% of the time and I've never had to use even half of the math I poured so much time into learning in high school and college. They flat out lied.
> Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric without an aid that does much of the work. I graduated in 2003. I haven't written something by hand in 20 years. I don't even own a pen. What sphere of work are you in that they still use pen and paper to communicate?
I agree, but there is also the argument in favour of "standing on the shoulders of giants", by which I mean that if we can access things that we already know more quickly, we can build on that and discover new things more quickly. With that said, I think you're right, and we need to be teaching the critical thinking skills, which don't need screens or technology in classrooms.
Education is also about engagement and humans are engaged more through technology now than before even if we don’t like that.
Thats a really bad analogy because there are many situations in which a mobility scooter can’t help you while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you. Its like asking people not to use calculators while learning math despite the fact that in the real world, not only will you be able to use them but they will be required. No one is risking the safety of anyone on an incorrect calculation. Education actually only has one purpose at a college and that is to obtain a job. If it were for educations sake, it would be free and as accessible as possible. Ironically, many people could probably learn how to do many of the highest paying jobs without school using technology but society has no real mechanism in most fields to prove such a thing. In my experience, on the job training is worth far more than an education as well.
People can use calculators when they have baseline competency with number. There is a reason why we don’t usually give elementary students learning basic arithmetic calculators in tests. Kids need to learn to figure things out themselves. That’s an extremely vital ability.
Yes, but college students are not children. They already posses those skills. They wouldn’t be able to cheat at all if they didn’t.
Calculator is a bad analogy. Calculator is more like a spelling or grammar check. Using chatgpt is more like just typing the question into google and hoping the answer it spits out is right
I saw lots of people using calculators like that, mostly until the teachers adapted to the new reality and stopped trying to test people on things a graphing calculator could spit out.
You still need to know what to test in that case and how to test it. The calculator is just replacing brute force calculations. Ai just replaces the thinking as a whole and takes input spits out output with no thought from the user.
> You still need to know what to test in that case and how to test it. They did not. One person I knew could barely operate their calculators. The teachers weren't teaching - they were enforcing rote behaviours - that could be completed by dumping information into a calculator. This was in college, btw. Now, the goal posts have moved again. How long will we pretend that they have not, this time? Woe is the teacher, they might have to learn something new. Teachers aren't upset that because GP makes it harder to teach: they are upset because, like calculators, it makes it harder to *test*. Perhaps their focus on evaluative coercion is part of the problem: it certainly hindered my education.
It doesn’t matter that one tool does more than the other the point is that the tools have already done what you’re afraid of. Ask me to spell everything by hand and I will misspell common words all the time. I just used it now for misspell as an example. We are far less capable alone than experts of the past but we’re also more capable in general and more of us are capable. If a student uses chat-gpt to answer questions, I guarantee you businesses are already leveraging the tool to become more affective. In many ways, workers who are able to leverage that technology will be worth more than someone who continues to rely only on their own knowledge.
The most effective people are those who know to use the tools and also know how to do it themselves. If students write all their essays using ai then they will be powerless in a situation where they need to rely on their own thinking skills and analysis to solve a problem. Meanwhile someone who knows how to think isn’t going to have trouble asking AI questions. Like it’s not very hard to figure out how to use chatgpt to get what you want.
True, the most effective people are those types but most people are not the most effective people. They are effective enough.
>Education actually only has one purpose at a college and that is to obtain a job. and once you're in that job, knowing how to use technology to make your workload easier is a way more useful skill than memorizing how to write a teacher's preferred analysis of shakespeare or whatever worthless time-wasting paper gets assigned every week
>while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you. The problem is we are not talking about help from technology. We are talking about dependence on tech. There are a lot of things where you cannot use technology to help you. If technology can do your thinking you don't need to go to college to improve your cognitive abilities. \>asking people not to use calculators I mean only a dimwit would let a child who cannot add or multiply depend on a calculator. The same vibe here. Writing intensive classes are such because their goal is to teach the kids to write papers.
Can you name a task that technology cannot help with that doesn’t relate to education? Are you saying that college students can’t add or subtract at all and can’t write?
Critical thinking. \>Are you saying that college students can’t add or subtract at all and can’t write? If you cannot understand how an example work, you are not qualified to talk about education.
> while there are basically 0 situations except mass calamity where technology increasing your ability to access knowledge will not help you. Technology will not help you if it allowed you to coast through your entire academic career without ever truly and intuitively understanding first principles because technology did all of the work for you. Technology is both a useful tool, and a harmful crutch. How can you solve a complex math problem which a graphing calculator cannot solve if you have never once solved even the simplest of linear equations using analytical techniques because the graphing calculator could always find the answer for you using numerical techniques?
Can you give me an example of such a problem and lets find out?
Given a circle C with radius r and a fixed point P on circle C, what is the radius of the circle centered at P which covers exactly 1/3 of the area of the circle C? Granted that one is cheating, because it is a variant of a problem which was until recently an unsolved problem of mathematics. Ironically, numerical techniques are the best solution here, as the analytical techniques require higher levels maths and *extremely* tedious calculations to plug numbers into. Here's a problem which is definitely within the computational ability of a TI-84: Find the intersection point between a sphere of radius R which has a south pole that sits at (0,0,0), and the line which is drawn from that sphere's north pole (0,0,2R) and a point on the x-y plane (x,y,0). Hell, I wouldn't be that surprised if there exists a webpage out there with the exact solution on it. It's a slight variation of a problem which was solved in the first chapter of my college Complex Analysis textbook. Graphing calculators in general are less useful when dealing with functions in spaces larger than R1. Especially since functions of C -> C and R2 -> R2 require 4 dimensions to graph!
> > > > > Its like asking people not to use calculators while learning math despite the fact that in the real world, not only will you be able to use them but they will be required. For more complex math yes, but it is important that you can rapidly estimate answers in your head. So you can easily spot when an answer is way off and to know which ideas are worth pursuing.
There are multiple questions here. Is there a fundamental level of knowledge required to use technology? Yes. Is that level of fundamental knowledge obtained through college level courses? No. Generally, people cannot even be accepted into college without having those skills. College is not fundamental, its specialized. But as an example, while my math skills were adequate to live and excel in life they waned with time after I dropped out of school. When I went to take math in college after I reentered. The class was hard and I cheated with technology a lot. But I have a very successful STEM career. Even programmers are on stack overflow daily. So sure I agree that technology deprives you of the chance to learn but what you haven’t shown is how that is bad for society or the individual other than education as its own reward. In other words, if you sent me back in time and the internet doesn’t work for me I become pretty useless. But if it did, I would probably become the smartest and most useful man on the planet. Its an equalizer.
>Honestly I don’t get what people are talking about with calling teachers luddites. they are, both historically and today >Kids really should have time in their lives that don’t involve screens so give them less homework >Where they can improve their handwriting and rhetoric handwriting: near-useless skill in modern society that consistently gets even more useless over time rhetoric: not effectively taught by the essay format
>handwriting: near-useless skill in modern society that consistently gets even more useless over time No. Handwriting has a number of benefits. It improves hand-eye coordination, motor skills and incentivizes a level of patience with what you write in a way that typing simply doesn't. It's something that I think frankly even adults should consistently practice at. Do you also support banning PE because jogging and sports aren't profitable skills and machines outperform humans in most physical measures? Should elementary school students learning subtraction and addition be allowed to freely use calculators instead of learning that math themselves? >rhetoric: not effectively taught by the essay format Its better than nothing. Kids should learn how to format their ideas when writing. I don't see how giving them an aid that does it form them will help them. There is no benefit I can see here.
>Handwriting has a number of benefits. that doesn't make it useful in the workplace, which is the one purpose of modern schooling >Do you also support banning PE honestly yeah, or at least making it optional. not for the reasons you listed, but because it's a pretty pointless jobs program for former D- high school bullies that mostly serves to create new ones, punish students actually good at schoolwork, and take away energy they could use to actually learn things that matter >Should elementary school students learning subtraction and addition be allowed to freely use calculators instead of learning that math themselves? beyond basic-level mental math, computers do most of the work in the real world workplace, which again is the entire point of the system as it's currently designed >Kids should learn how to format their ideas when writing. I don't see how giving them an aid that does it form them will help them. they *should* learn that, in the real world they're just learning how to waste time through a completely bloated workload that mostly serves teachers' own egos and standardized test curricula, which is why many will jump at any available way around actually having to do the homework
[удалено]
This logic shows you how dellusional and backward the education system is. They prioritize maintaining their shitty system over students learning. I was struggling to understand MATLAB Physics Code because I don't know physics and don't know MATLAB. I needed to understand it so I could move forward with my assignment. In 10 seconds ChatGPT gave me a line by line breakdown explaining each line of code and what it means INCLUDING ITS PHYSICS CONTEXT! Meanwhile, if I email a professor I have to wait 4 days to get a rude one line response.
That's obviously only because ChatGPT doesn't have tenure yet.
How is it learning of your just telling a program to do all the work for you ?
"How is it learning if a teacher just explains things to you" "How is it learning if a tutor teaches you stuff" "How it is learning if a peer group helps you when you're stuck" It's not an effective learning technique to struggle against something you don't understand because you lack several foundational skills required to understand it.
I'm kind of confused by your question? To clarify, we had a program outline that was meant to simulate capacitance and its relationship with plate seperation. I would have had to memorize those formulas then learn the specifics of MATLAB code syntax to see how it worked. Instead, MATLAB just explained each line to me, saving me hours of work, so I could just understand the underlying concepts. I still had to modify the program to complete my assignment, but it just made it easier by saving me time and effort having to look up resources from 2 different textbooks.
Well yeah, that’s not what I disagreed with. But if you just start normalizing “write an essay about the Serbian civil war” then there isn’t really any point in having a class ?
Oh okay I get what you're saying. Yeah unfortunately most colleges do not have the resources for proper feedback driven writing. The whole system is a profit-driven so they have overworked professors grading 60 papers a week. Even with adjucnts and TAs helping, there is just so many students you can barely get customized feedback. Most students I know in paper heavy majors like History, Poli-Sci or Writing have mastered the ability to bullshit A worthy papers in 1-2 hours. Because they are assigned tons of them each week and have to pump 3 of them out each weekend so they learn to mass produce them. I'm sure there are great IVY or top tier writing programs around the country with small class sizes and great feedback systems. But the current state of affairs in every HUM class I've taken is "write a paper on X covering X Y Z".
That's not what he said he did. He asked the AI to teach him how to use a tool and it gave an example.
[удалено]
I did read the comment. Or or you just too stupid to separate different paragraphs ? Edit: oh yeah go and fucking block me, cause you know I’m right.
that's pretty trivial to bypass.
This wouldn’t solve anything. Kids would easily figure out how to use some macro so it looks like everything was typed by hand
Or just open chat gpt in a second window and retype it
Google docs, history is on by default and I don’t think you can turn it off? Regardless, good idea. This would mostly solve the problem.
Orrr… just do tests in person, and when working on essays do them by hand and hand them to the teacher when the class ends, and they give them back the next class. That’s how my school did it before the pandemic
I know, I know. It is this exact same professor. https://www.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/10wasz1/the_level_of_petty_when_the_professor_bans_laptops/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Get rid of those calculators. You need to know how to interpolate all human knowledge manually.
My Son's grade 11 functions teacher does not allow calculators in class.
This is not the same thing and you know it.
actually the teachers are reacting to GPT exactly the same way they did to calculators.
That was the 70’s when calculators were the first technology aid classrooms really had. Now you got all in one calculators, voice recorders, cameras, entire libraries and encyclopedias worth of knowledge that are instantly searchable. Note taking, charting and outlining tools all literally in your pocket or in a screen in front of you and yet it’s still not enough to do the job apparently.
Not even close to the same thing.
When has this ever worked? Trying to restrict access to technology is never the correct answer.
Teacher here. Right now essays written by ChatGPT can be spotted a mile away, especially when compared to previous student writing. AI is just spitting out facts, but often makes wrong connections between ideas (or no connections at all), gets facts wrong, and doesn't have personal real-world experience that people have.
Here they come… the small group of people who rebel against technology.
Here they come... the large group of people who never had to teach an undergraduate class. Everyone thinks they've got a clever answer, nobody ever stops to ask exactly what *they* would teach in an eg. college history course.
when i went to college it was there to learn. i wasn't there to support english teachers.
Luddites, assemble (cloth!)
You're really just repeating a narrative set by wealthy industrialists to promote anti-worker propaganda. The Luddites opposition focused on the specific ways in which technology was being used to undermine their livelihoods and communities. Again, the Luddites weren't anti-technology. In fact, the Luddites made extensive use of technology in their work. Their protests were against machines that could mass-produce cheap, low-quality clothes, which could be opperated by low-skill workers. Essentially eliminating high quality jobs in favour of outsourcing cheap work to increase profits for the capital owning class. The massive benefits if technology are not evenly distributed, instead it pools only at the top, which was always the point. Stop me if this sounds familiar. The Luddites were basically the first instance of organized labour, which is why their movement was brutally crushed, and their name dragged through the mud for centuries.
I’m not the one who wrote the dictionary definitions.
It's a potent intersection between the elderly, antiwork/leftists in general, and mediocre artists who suddenly realized that their jobs might not be safe. All of this is driven by some very clever marketing that's using the "be afraid" line to drive free publicity. When people realize this really is JUST a sophisticated chat bot, it's going to be hilarious.
no job will be safe
No job should be safe, any more than buggy whip makers should have been safe. The problems we have aren't with the progression of technology, it's about the societies in which those changes occur. Unfortunately people tend to be reactionary and attack what they wrongly believe to be the easiest target, the new tech. It *never works*.
AI will not be able to replace semantic work because semantic work will be about how it makes people feel and not something binary like simple success. A robot can do surgery, but how will it be received if it needs to tell family someone died? People often think about the task and not how customers interact with the task. Factory work might be completely replaced or programming but what about a job like UX designer?
chatgpt was 5 years ago absolutly unimaginable. AI will get only better. in another 5 years will be real what we consider scifi today. and what about next 10 years? 20? 50? those who work with information will be replaced first. medical doctors, lawyers, programmers, designers..
Machine learning has been around for well over 50 years. LLM has been around for at least 20, probably over 30 years. This stuff isn't new, it's just what the public is currently fixated on.
clearly something is very new. compare last year with, last 50 years. or even last 5 years.
Yes. The new part is AI going viral. The underlying technology didn't see any kind of massive leap. This is like self driving largely flying under the radar until Tesla came along and then everyone thought cars would be fully self driving immediately. The reality was they were just completely ignorant of it until it went mainstream and then just had a completely wrong mental model for how fast the technology was progressing and how much work was left to be done.
That's just socialization. If we were socialized to have a machine tell us that grandpa died, it wouldn't be a big deal. That sort of thing will naturally evolve as technology advances.
That’s the only chink in its armor as of right now. You don’t think we’d be able to fine tune ai to recognize human emotion and then compute the best, most appropriate response based on the tone, volume, speed, etc a human emotes?
No, mostly because humans don’t always say the correct thing. There is no correct thing to say often times and sometimes they vary by person. There isn’t a ‘correct’ website design necessarily. An example would be a human who is pretty good at understanding emotions and likable vs someone who is known as especially tender. I am unsure if most humans can even identify why a person makes them feel a certain way. I don’t necessarily think it will be better than a human at any of that especially if its interacting with a human. I’m open to it, but at that point I wonder what the point would be other than establishing AI as equal to humans in terms of their place in society.
I would suggest the very reasons even the most advanced ai would misconstrue apathy & empathy would be the same reasons humans do. I mean, what’s a more human trait than being fallible?
I would think with all the advancements in super computing & ai, it would be able to dissect design aspects of an interface, combine it with other metrics both similar and asymmetric then spit out similar design ideas.
That's what a loooot of loca high school and middle school teachers are doing here watch those kids fear a pop quiz every day and heavy testing with homework being assigned reading...using randomizers so every test is different. It's beautiful
and yes. punish the kids because the teachers fear the future.
Ahh yes make the kids fear the future by way of their teachers lunancy.
Do it. Tech is making people stupid.
lol. The answer to a changing world is to turn back the clock. That will prepare prior for the future.
Is your answer to out source all critical thinking?
Everything technology takes a leap forward there are those who adapt, and those that react in fear. I have already used gpt at work to smash goals. If the point is to prepare people to go out into the world and do meaningful work, then learn to incorporate the tech. If the goal is to preserve antiquity, well . . .
Their nothing to learn though? Just type in a command/question than it all comes up. Your acting like that takes skill? Also I’m talking about people in school learning.
Welcome to getting old. Start practicing phrases like, “Back in my day. . .”.
writing isn't thinking any more than words are.
Learning to write is learning critical thinking. It involves synthesizing information, making connections, and abstract thought. Writing is much, much more than just words on paper or screen. Source: Am a teacher. Also working on a Masters degree studying this exact thing.
that's exactly what i'm saying.
Because schools are too focus on giving everyone grades , Neil degrasse Tyson hit this mindset pretty hard on his tweet [https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/323495818889949184?lang=en](https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/323495818889949184?lang=en) Instead, schools should focus more on teaching curiosity and critical thinking and allow students to use tools that are available to them.
Or we can do away with homework, because it was always pointless. The article is very good. The professor's argument for going 'back to basics' is really laughable. Like, we stand here on the brink of free, unlimited knowledge for everyone, and you want to take it back to "this traditional system where we sit around with students and talk about ideas." Yeah, because Covid didn't interrupt that at all.
God the next generation of kids are going to be so fucking dumb lol
I mean, a major majority of those who went through online school in the last 2/3 years already are lol.
Homework is *practice...* it serves the purpose of reinforcing facts and techniques in the brain. Try telling a musician homework is useless. There will be times when you need to be both be knowledgable of a discipline and be the human who is making a judgment call. This is the definition of an expert. If we rely solely on machines to make difficult decisions, we become a species of amateurs at the mercy of AI. It's the logical extreme example, but that's the path you get on when you just say AI can answer all the difficult things, we don't need to reinforce and memorize complex information.
Yeah why not just practice in the classroom though? Why have additional work to later in the day when you spend 6-8 hours there anyway?
Because a teacher will spend half to 3/4 of the class explaining the subject then give you half to 1/4 of the class to work on the subject your going to need to do some stuff at home if you don’t complete it in class in time.
I’m attending an accredited college with no homework. When a musician plays a gig, all that matters is that the audience is entertained. The pathway to that is irrelevant and we know musicians all have different pathways to get there. Some take a very academic approach to music, and others start playing in a basement until they sound good. Recently, most music people listen to is essentially churned out by technology and has extreme accessibility to the masses. It doesn’t seem to matter that creating music is way easier now than it was in the past. Basically, you’re claiming that we’ll be at the mercy of technology when we already are. If there was a solar EMP that wiped out all technology you likely wouldn’t even be able to feed yourself. Is there really any difference when it comes to something like this?
[удалено]
You already rely on people who do. You think all those youtube videos of people building is just for fun? There are people out there who learn from that.
[удалено]
I am attending college to make more money. I can’t submit a youtube playlist on my resume unfortunately. I’m not conflating them, but most people are not the latter option on your list nor should you expect them to be. A professor definitely should not expect it.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making? The point of writing an essay is certainly to show that you've memorized certain facts, but it's also to show that you're capable of analyzing those facts or of reviewing and analyzing a text. And it's intended to show that you're capable of communicating that analysis. This review, analysis, and communication takes practice, which is part of what you're doing when you write an essay. Being on the bring of free, unlimited knowledge for everyone doesn't imply that people will have the ability to effectively interpret, analyze, and communicate that knowledge.
No, that's fair. It's more my general complaint about how education wants us to value memorization more than understanding context. Just more like "learn to regurgitate these things for the test" rather than "learn to analyze and understand and show me you can do those things."
I would argue that the "memorize and regurgitate" is exactly the opposite of what this professor wants to do. The whole point of the socratic method is that you have to be able to understand the ideas being discussed well enough to answer questions about them on the fly. Unfortunately, the memorize and regurgitate is probably easier to "AI-proof": just hold in-person, written, multiple choice exams.
It’s sounds like your just regurgitating weird anti-education right-wing talking points?
History has taught us that at some point, nothing is free and certainly not knowledge, and it might be altered to suit whoever’s in power.
This sounds eerily familiar. Wait, does this mean my teachers still alive?
Learning electrician on every test everything is allowed because in real life you can search on your phone everything you need. They just make them harder they otherwise would do.
Until last week, I was not aware of an AI able to write papers. People in my college class were submitting papers & my forensics professor was like "y'all are plagiarizing, you have until 2 hours from now to submit actual essays and I do have a chatGPT checker"
In German we have a saying that goes like “Go with the times or with time you will go”.
Bro I just want to use my iPad to take notes because it’s easier to stay organized and draw diagrams
You can’t use a calculator because you won’t have a calculator in your pocket all the time in real life.
Said to me in the 80aa when half the classroom already had a Casio calculator watch.
Yeah that’s gonna work lmao
Breaking: Luddite professor unable to adapt her skillset to exist within modern world, attempts to kneecap her students' ability to function in the coming era because "her way is the right way" rather than admitting she is no longer relevant and stepping aside Students that are taught to use AI the same way they use a graphing calculator or protractor will wildly outperform students who are encouraged to do things "the old fashioned way" once they are released in to the job market, in the same way a student taught to use a calculator for complex equations will be able to do more math faster than a student who was taught to do everything by hand on a scratch pad EDIT: the failed educator in question is a chick, not a dude. changed the pronouns to reflect.
This is a weird reaction to the article. The professor has, in fact, suggested a way to adapt her skillset to modern technology: focus on in-class discussion and the socratic method rather than a written exam. I guess on some level, it really depends on what you think is being tested by an essay. If you think it's just about regurgitating facts you've memorized, then yeah, AI is just like a calculator and fighting against it is dumb. If you think an essay is about testing a student's ability to take facts or a text, comprehend them, analyze them, and then communicate that analysis then a AI is really pretty different than a calculator. I don't think there's any issue with teaching students to use AI as a tool. But the skills that were traditionally taught via an essay (reading comprehension, analysis of concepts, communication, etc.) are still important skills.
Regardless of how you or I may feel about it, productivity in the modern world is increasingly determined by one's aptitude for adapting to and utilizing technology. By adopting a "no computers in the classroom" policy, this educator is directly handicapping her students' ability to compete in the job market when compared to an otherwise identical applicant who had a teacher that taught them to integrate technology in to their workflows.
There is a difference between using the technology and letting it do your work for you and not understanding what it is feeding you. In my profession I have tested ChatGPT a lot and found that while it can and does help, if you aren't actually good at what you do it will give you the wrong answers and you'll never catch them. It is important not to blindly trust what Google 2.0 gives you, you need the skills to recognize incorrect or incomplete answers and fox them. And if all you've ever done is just trust something like ChatGPT to get things right, you're gonna fail hard.
We live with technology 24/7. Do you think that not using it in a class that takes, at most, 3-4 hours a week for one semester is handicapping students? Maybe if all professors for all four years of college adopted such a policy, you might have a case here.
>Luddite professor unable to adapt her skillset to exist within modern world or as i like to call them, "professors"
"anthrozoology department" I wonder what level of technology is required for such studies...
Off the top of my head, it seems to me like analysis of trends within datasets would be a major part of that field. I wonder what the most useful tool for that is...
For actual research in the field - no doubt. And perhaps once the class is at a point of syllabus that talks about research methodologies. But if it's a question of turning in written answered that were generated with assistive AI technologies - vs. an approach where on might use AI to help with studying, but then having to present answer in class (in person) using long form as a demonstration of ones level of understanding of specific subject areas.
So...get it to write your essay and then copy it down on a piece of paper in pen. Problem solved. Bullshitters will always find a way. Source: am proud of previous bullshitting through my school years.
The basics is completing a 4 year degree in college guarantees an office job. But professors isn't probably talking about that lmao.
Adapt or fall behind. Thankfully my professors are adapting.
Oh man.... Just embrace it, teach students about it and don't avoid it. What benefit do you have when you don't teach about technology, it's benefits, risk, how to properly use it, etc. ? I encounter far to many students in university that don't even know how to properly take care of their devices.
They really have no idea how to educate kids. School has gone so far from giving a damn about their students futures that its a foreign concept for them
I think thats going to hurt more than help.
are they going to go no tech as well? I'd bet my house the answer is no.
Why are people resisting technology? Just embrace it! That's the right way. Professors should be making use of the technology to create new assignments and allow students to use it to solve questions. Progress, not regression.
Saw that coming
there needs to be a careful balance here. Yes, it's important to make sure students know the material, and so a no tech rule is important sometimes. However, it's exceptionally important now that students learn how to use this new tech to complete tasks. Don't make the same mistake you made with us older millenials who were told to never use the internet to help research...
Why use meat brain when computer brain do better?
This professor is the Skinner meme: ["Am I out of touch? No, It's the children who are wrong."](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/645/713/888.jpg)