Overinflated hype about “where the puck is going” being wrong is…not a new phenomenon. And the non-tech media (traditional and social, and particularly a whole lot of the elite commentariat that spans both more than the “hard” news side of traditional media, though that is influenced too) perspective on this is driven quite disproportionately by the marketing message of the narrow set of people with the most financial stake in promoting the hype. Even the cautionary notes being sounded there are exactly the ones that are being used by the same people to promote narrow control.
The part that gets me is they aren't just aimlessly making posts, they're getting involved with webinars targeted at educators in their respective topics, speaking at regional events about the future with ChatGPT, etc.
One of them was a really excellent teacher but like this dude absolutely does not have any qualifications to be speaking on ChatGPT, and I hope it hasn't actually changed his teaching style too much because I'm having trouble imagining how ChatGPT could've fit in well with the way he used to teach.
Don't get me wrong, hype often surrounds something legitimately good, but I think ChatGPT is being taken way out of context in both the ML achievement it is and in what things the tool is actually useful for. I guess it is easy for a layperson to make mistaken assumptions about where the puck is going when they see what ChatGPT can do.
[1] "The story took place in 1929: Joseph Patrick Kennedy Sr., JFK's father, claimed that he knew it was time to get out of the stock market when he got investment tips from a shoeshine boy."
I grew up and using a pocket calculator was verboten. You just did not do it. You better learn and memorize all of that stuff. Spin on 10 years after me and all kids have them now. If you have the right app on your phone the thing will OCR the problem and auto solve it and show you the steps. ChatGPT and its ilk are here, now. How we learn and create things has dramatically changed in under a year. It is not clear how much though.
Teachers are trying to get ahold of what does it mean to teach if you can just ask some device to summarize something as complex as the interactions of the 6 major countries in WWII and what caused it. Then the thing thinks for 2 seconds and spits out a 1000 word essay on exactly that. Then depending on which one you use it will footnote it all and everything.
This style of learning is going to take some getting used to. This tool is in their classrooms right now. Right or wrong. It will be there. The teachers are going to have to figure out what this means to their class planning. Not 5 years from now, today.
These posts ooze hype bullshit, not nuanced talk about pros and cons and how it will affect education. ChatGPT should be thought of as a writing tool and perhaps an information source on very surface level topics. Trying to teach an advanced research course at a top school with ChatGPT heavily involved is a terrible idea on the other hand.
I have tested asking it about a number of specific topics in biology research/asking questions about particular papers, and it gives horrible answers the majority of the time. If someone submitted that as a paper to me I'd give it a bad grade because it is dumb, I wouldn't need to know if it were ChatGPT or not. I would be alarmed if my kid's teacher went from organically teaching how to dissect a scientific paper to suggesting that a major part of the curriculum can be replaced with talking to GPT.
I've seen articles about teachers taking the other extreme against ChatGPT too, but I haven't personally seen anything that was a realistic take on what LLMs can do. Maybe it boils down again to disagreement on "where the puck is going" but to me most of the hype is making ridiculous assumptions about what is imminent meanwhile ignoring the things worth discussing now.
Which sounds a lot like bubbles. The dot com crash didn't mean the internet was a bad idea or that it wasn't worth discussing at that time.
In any event, he isn't concerned at all about students using it for assignments, it's the degree to which he seems to think it can be integrated in his current curriculum that alarms me. I think he is misunderstanding the capabilities and therefore pitching something that doesn't actually make sense.
The other teacher I didn't follow as closely, I just got a kick out of seeing she was now advertising some sort of webinar about ChatGPT filled with buzzwords too.
Also if a teacher is really serious about wanting to plan around what GPT can and can't do to the point they want to be a teaching authority on it, they should be consulting with people in the relevant domain. When I want to use a new tool in the lab I talk with colleagues that have a great deal of relevant experience before I start working it into experiments. I can't imagine starting to give advice to others on the matter when I don't actually know the current nuances.
Already happening. A student in Russia submitted his thesis written with the help of GPT, it was accepted, then rejected, then accepted: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/02/russian-student-al...
