But how? Calculators can help you do arithmetic , but to solve real problems you have to know how to apply the mathematics. A calculator cant solve a problem for you until you break the problem down into discrete operations. You still have to learn how to break that problem into those operations.
If you’re trying to teach students the basic skill of writing, there’s nothing to break down. Write an essay is a pretty atomic operation.
Altman’s response is an incredibly typical response from a silicon valley style technologist. This will be really beneficial one day and the downsides aren’t really bad because you can just adapt to it so my company can continue making money
A student can provide it an idea that they are stuck on and being given several pathways through which you can get unstuck.
By generating personalized content immediately that you can then analyze.
Specific example: A student explains the thought process while using an AI to create a poem. The student would provide a prompt to the AI, the AI provides a poem, then the student analyzes that poem and provides another prompt to improve the poem. The student will justify the reasons why they decided to convey the new prompt, explaining in which ways the AI’s poem erred from the expected format for that particular type of poetry. There should be at leas 10 prompts. If the student considers the poem to be a good poem before the 10 prompts, the student should defend why it is a good poem and try to transform it to convey some different emotion.
I think that this type of AI-supervised learning is very different from what we are used to, and it can create a very engaging and dynamic process. This is just one random example - I am sure that good teachers will come up with excellent techniques.
And I do want to point out that we learn basic arithmetic without using calculators. Teachers can ask students not to use an AI for some particular work. Students can cheat, and most schools around the world do not have anti-plagiarism tools. Common tools can’t even detect translated plagiarism, so if someone speaks two languages they can plagiarize all they want with little worry (actually, when I worked as a teacher I did translate work that I was suspicious about and caught a few, but most teachers won’t bother). I doubt that AI will increase the percentage of students that want to cheat, and it is easy to cheat.
But that helps the student get better at overseeing the AI, not at writing or critical thinking. I don’t even think it would help them get better at analyzing writing. Most students would just turn in the first result, unless the teacher requires them turn in the whole transcript of their session and then the teacher is just grading them on AI overseeing. And that’s one case. Every bit of homework I ever did (before higher education) has been shown by ChatGPT: analyzing literature, writing in various styles, physics problems, foreign language translation, etc.
I doubt that AI will increase the percentage of students that want to cheat, and it is easy to cheat.
What? Cheating right now requires a human somewhere to do the work. A student can steal their work from online or pay someone they know to do it, but basic work will have available answers. A teacher may be able to come up with a unique format for their specific questions in their subject, but that takes extra work for the teacher. If a student can literally just type the question on the paper into ChatGPT and get an answer, I can’t imagine many teenage students not doing that, at least some of the time.
It sounds like you’re suggesting they rewrite their curriculums around ChatGPT (or similar AIs). That would require the teacher themselves to have a good understanding of the AI. So they have to gain proficiency in a brand new technology and then design a way of teaching around that. This is a ridiculous ask of a group of people who are already under-resourced and not keeping up with their current goals (at least in the U.S where I am).
That’s the main point of my previous post. It’s irresponsible and immoral to develop and release a technology for your own profit and just say everybody else needs to adapt to it.
@Sal@0x1C3B00DA “I do want to point out that we learn basic arithmetic without using calculators. Teachers can ask students not to use an AI for some particular work” - we learn basic arithmetic before using calculators; we learn how to solve certain equations + compute certain integrals on paper with basic calculators before moving to harder more real ones + having to use a computer. I think students should learn to create a poem on their own before involving AI assistance.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.ml
Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage
But how? Calculators can help you do arithmetic , but to solve real problems you have to know how to apply the mathematics. A calculator cant solve a problem for you until you break the problem down into discrete operations. You still have to learn how to break that problem into those operations.
If you’re trying to teach students the basic skill of writing, there’s nothing to break down. Write an essay is a pretty atomic operation.
Altman’s response is an incredibly typical response from a silicon valley style technologist. This will be really beneficial one day and the downsides aren’t really bad because you can just adapt to it so my company can continue making money
By getting immediate feedback on your writing.
A student can provide it an idea that they are stuck on and being given several pathways through which you can get unstuck.
By generating personalized content immediately that you can then analyze.
Specific example: A student explains the thought process while using an AI to create a poem. The student would provide a prompt to the AI, the AI provides a poem, then the student analyzes that poem and provides another prompt to improve the poem. The student will justify the reasons why they decided to convey the new prompt, explaining in which ways the AI’s poem erred from the expected format for that particular type of poetry. There should be at leas 10 prompts. If the student considers the poem to be a good poem before the 10 prompts, the student should defend why it is a good poem and try to transform it to convey some different emotion.
I think that this type of AI-supervised learning is very different from what we are used to, and it can create a very engaging and dynamic process. This is just one random example - I am sure that good teachers will come up with excellent techniques.
And I do want to point out that we learn basic arithmetic without using calculators. Teachers can ask students not to use an AI for some particular work. Students can cheat, and most schools around the world do not have anti-plagiarism tools. Common tools can’t even detect translated plagiarism, so if someone speaks two languages they can plagiarize all they want with little worry (actually, when I worked as a teacher I did translate work that I was suspicious about and caught a few, but most teachers won’t bother). I doubt that AI will increase the percentage of students that want to cheat, and it is easy to cheat.
But that helps the student get better at overseeing the AI, not at writing or critical thinking. I don’t even think it would help them get better at analyzing writing. Most students would just turn in the first result, unless the teacher requires them turn in the whole transcript of their session and then the teacher is just grading them on AI overseeing. And that’s one case. Every bit of homework I ever did (before higher education) has been shown by ChatGPT: analyzing literature, writing in various styles, physics problems, foreign language translation, etc.
What? Cheating right now requires a human somewhere to do the work. A student can steal their work from online or pay someone they know to do it, but basic work will have available answers. A teacher may be able to come up with a unique format for their specific questions in their subject, but that takes extra work for the teacher. If a student can literally just type the question on the paper into ChatGPT and get an answer, I can’t imagine many teenage students not doing that, at least some of the time.
It sounds like you’re suggesting they rewrite their curriculums around ChatGPT (or similar AIs). That would require the teacher themselves to have a good understanding of the AI. So they have to gain proficiency in a brand new technology and then design a way of teaching around that. This is a ridiculous ask of a group of people who are already under-resourced and not keeping up with their current goals (at least in the U.S where I am).
That’s the main point of my previous post. It’s irresponsible and immoral to develop and release a technology for your own profit and just say everybody else needs to adapt to it.
@Sal @0x1C3B00DA “I do want to point out that we learn basic arithmetic without using calculators. Teachers can ask students not to use an AI for some particular work” - we learn basic arithmetic before using calculators; we learn how to solve certain equations + compute certain integrals on paper with basic calculators before moving to harder more real ones + having to use a computer. I think students should learn to create a poem on their own before involving AI assistance.