Surprised FERPA wasn't mentioned explicitly. At least this version doesn't use the data for training, but I shudder to think of all the college administrators dumping student information into their personal ChatGPT accounts right now...
Educators have to be especially wary of these efforts, because every tech company comes up with the bright idea of "let's give it to students for free, they'll get hooked, and then when they make money they will buy our product." So we are inundated with spam messages for edutech the way doctors are spammed by big pharma reps. I've got messages in my inbox right now offering me $$$$ to blog about some AI startup. I've got some tech rep hounding me to push some online C++ tool. Now add OpenAI to the list.
Change it to "I knew that educators would need if they were like me", and it (surprisingly) gets mostly correct. For example in the past, I volunteered to prepare talented pupils in math for studying this subject at a university, so I do claim that I have some experience in education.
I think I know some things about what would make sense for educating children, but the kind of people who actually become educators are a quite different kind of breed than me. So educators would likely not like my ideas (they don't fit the political climate and/or desired style of education), even though I think they do make sense (and would dogfood them). The latter is evidenced by the fact that I was told by work colleagues that they would love my ideas to be put into a textbook form. Thus, my ideas seem to fall on much fertile ground for an audience of gifted parents who would love for their children to become gifted, too, than for people who become educators.
That said, maybe OpenAI did this?
The promotional announcements led me to expect "ChatGPT 4 for all!" Yet, the distribution of access has been ambiguous, leaving many staff members, including my wife, in the dark. There has been little to no guidance on how to effectively integrate ChatGTP into their daily tasks, appropriate use cases, or any potential costs involved.
The gap between the initial excitement generated by press releases and the reality of the rollout's execution has been significant. Even now, the specifics remain unclear, despite my efforts to assist my wife in navigating this whole thing.
> “Integrating OpenAI's technology into our educational and operational frameworks accelerates transformation at ASU. We're collaborating across our community to harness these tools, extending our learnings as a scalable model for other institutions.”
Provide free usage to students, so they get used to using it indiscriminately, then they charge on a usage basis for non-students depending on the plan.
especially in 3rd world countries, they even provide free materials and education... which is high ROI down the line
A large fraction (often 70%) of responses will be identical in structure and content, if not verbatim copies of each other. These are the people who have used ChatGPT. These are the people who tend to do very poorly on closed-laptop examinations.
Students have a choice of how much of their critical thinking they choose to offload to the computer, and how much they develop their own critical thinking skills.
Robust assessments in classes still paint an accurate picture of students' capabilities. Designing those assessments requires work for instructors. Pour one out for the lazy.
I suspect that in the coming years, industries will reward those who are capable of adding value beyond naïve parroting of LLM output. Pour one out for the lazy.
You can do both. My son's using the chatbots as idea/synonym/high-level structure generators and general tidier-uppers. I'd be surprised if he's taking more than 10% of their suggestions verbatim, but it's great for rubber ducking.
Ripe for being gamed but is probably the only way to do PoW without becoming wildly intrusive with personal devices.
measuring proof of work
But there's nothing to stop you from using another AI system to interact with Khanmigo.
That sounds impressive but the link they give to this research just describes a (huge) NIH grant, and speculates on all the ways that AI can help allocate opioid treatment. Is there a paper with actual results from using the described GPT?
Students are now scrambling to migrate, turns out forever at Google is a lot shorter than you think.
Having the collective knowledge of the world in my pocket and a personal tutor for any topic still sounds surreal.
But having a tutor or teacher to actually interact with have also important benefits. It is not a lesson for a class of who knows how much students, but for you and you in particular. You may be missing some other student questions, but to have freedom to ask, without social pressure, without worrying about time, or even for old topics that may or not be related to the current one, may be a big improvement.
The next question we should ask ourselves is what would be now the role of libraries, teachers and teaching institutions in this landscape. What are the cracks in this new teaching model that they can adapt to to fulfill?
If you're discussing, say, philosophy with it, it has the potential to lead you deep into the weeds.
Basically for every topic about which I ask this "personal tutor" (AI models), it hallucinates up stuff. My work colleagues tell me that I should ask it about more "normal" topics, and ask for less paper references. Seriously: for more "normal" topics or for topics where quite some false answers are acceptable, I don't need a personal tutor.
Many white collar jobs require a degree, and people from institutions like schools will get trained on tools they later use during university and work.
These people will influence others then as-well.
Reminds me of Steve Jobs push to sell computers to educational institutions.
SCNR
In particular, not every school/university should do it by it's own. But they all together should do so (e.g. by funding the creation of open content).
That would allow to give out books (or copy content from it) for free, make it accessible to more students.