Getting people in my comments saying, oh you do have to learn how to work with a chatbot effectively. Whatever brain genius skills you believe you’ve mastered, I guarantee you that students aren’t learning them by clicking “summarize” on a PDF +
Getting people in my comments saying, oh you do have to learn how to work with a chatbot effectively. Whatever brain genius skills you believe you’ve mastered, I guarantee you that students aren’t learning them by clicking “summarize” on a PDF +
The part in the article where they said students will post their AI certification badges on social media legit made me laugh. No 18 year old is going on tiktok showing off their little badge to their friends. Nobody’s putting that on Snapchat.
+ via a shitty platform a credulous edtech guy rented from a private-equity backed startup.
publichealthpolicyjournal.com/mit-study-fi...
There’s also the fact that since ChatGPT was released 3 years ago and literally no one knows what’s happening in neural nets, you almost certainly learned your special skills the same way students are perfectly capable of doing, by poking at the black box and reading Reddit threads.
Done arguing with people today, I’ve got a houseful of sick kids to tend to. Feel free to go ham among yourselves.
We are growing dumber at an alarming rate.
Hear hear! I made a minicomic as syllabus to address this with my class bsky.app/profile/nsou...
Beautiful!
Thank you - it went over well with students!
Yeah academics are certainly not being given the tools or training to do this right (and I’m not even sure it can be usefully done in an American higher ed setting, which often struggles to evaluate student process, mostly for good reasons).
I responded because 1️⃣ dismissing it as “just chat” is very different from 2️⃣“as faculty we’re being set up to fail” or 3️⃣ “we need to teach why it is unethical even though useful”. 2️⃣ is an important discussion; 3️⃣ is an important multidisciplinary course or even a degree.
But you can’t do 2️⃣ (LLMs and academia) or 3️⃣ (LLMs as situated historical tech) properly if there’s no curiosity about 1️⃣.
Anyway I realize pushing back like this invites a block, and that’s a bummer. But I really would urge you to dive in with people who are going beyond “just chat”. We need good critique of that, and being so dismissive of the genuine techne being developed here is not a good start.
Who’s dismissive of the tech? I teach how LLMs work from start to finish. I just don’t pretend that elementary school kids need to learn how to fabulate memes.
“It is extremely easy to use a chatbot” is… pretty dismissive? To be generous, I suppose this is dismissive of the user and not the tool, in much the same way “it is extremely easy to use a saw” is dismissive of the skill of the carpenter rather than the tool. So 🤷🏽 Anyway, have a fine morning!
the objective of a chatbot is that it SHOULD BE extremely easy to use. It’s not the users fault if a product doesn’t work properly and there should be no expectation that the user base simply learn to use workarounds vs demanding the flaws be fixed
if you’re riding a horse, the animal will do all sorts of stuff you don’t want it to do and you’ll have to use various tricks and techniques to deal with that. This should not apply to human created tools designed for use by humans!
we used to call these problems “bugs” and software companies would restrict them to a small user group called “beta testers” until they were resolved.
How long does it take to learn to ignore the output and do the damn work?
They all think they're developing a skill while deskilling themselves. Kinda wild, like an autocannibalism machine.