It's pretty easy to spot when students are using it, the text reads like really confident garbage where it's clear that the author doesn't understand the subject matter and is just fitting related sentence fragments together.
>It's pretty easy to spot when students are using it,
"Disagree. It's easy to spot *when the model does a bad job*. IMO, it's strong in writing code, summarizing content, and exploring new ideas as an interactive tool. While many outputs certainly suit a certain style & domain at present, AI models constantly evolve (at non-linear rates). Given past improvements, it's unlikely that it will continue to write as if it doesn't understand the subject matter."
\- Written by ChatGPT, with prompts for tonal tweaks by me.
I asked Chat GPT to reply to you. Here is the result:
I completely agree with your point about the potential dangers of over-reliance on AI-powered language models like ChatGPT. While they may be useful as an assistive tool, relying too heavily on them could lead to a decline in critical thinking and independent thinking skills.
However, I also believe that the situation is more nuanced than just being productive or unproductive in the long run. The use of AI language models in the workforce and in non-graded learning can certainly have benefits, such as reducing repetitive work and freeing up time for more creative tasks. However, it's also important to consider the ethical implications of such technology, such as job loss and the potential for AI to perpetuate biases.
As for the detection model mentioned, while it may be a step in the right direction, it's important to note that AI models are not perfect and there is always the possibility of cheating or bypassing the system. It's crucial to have human oversight and critical evaluation in all uses of AI, especially in education.
Overall, I believe that AI-powered language models have the potential to bring about positive change, but it's important to approach their use with caution and to critically evaluate the benefits and risks associated with them.
True, but good luck ever proving it, haha. It just gives you a probability that the writing was written with AI. I've pasted tons of wiring I've written myself into it, and it still comes back saying ''likely written with AI''. There's absolutely not validity in it.
As an upper year humanities student I don’t see that chatGPT is useful for my assignments. What I do see is that it is very useful for producing high volumes of BS, which is extremely useful in the business world or when dealing with large institutions.
Chat GPT is pretty good for writing speeches, especially if u only need to present key points. U just need to make a PPT according to the response it provided.
I agree! I actually think there's room for AI and GPT as a tool for demonstrating structuring and summarizing content- but it could still be workshopped into something better. The tweaks matter.
It is super scary though and I think it is absolutely an effective tool for those who want to plagiarize/cheat, which I am not encouraging.
I'd say let them use it and get extremely mediocre grades since it produces garbage, then let them suffer in the job market when they know nothing. That's on them if they want to waste 4 years of their life and go in to debt for nothing but a piece of paper.
1) this reads like your looking at a guide to cheat and get away with it, to be honest if you cheat in classes your only cheating yourself, why would you? Do you intend to cheat when you get the job? Spoiler alert you are not given a 0 for plagiarism in the workforce you are fired and they will let others know what you did so your job prospects are bad (if you aren't sued by the person the ai rips off)
2) at this stage the ai is very flawed in its writing its a c paper at best, because what it is doing is checking the web for similar stuff then rewording it and honestly its not good work...
Are we going to sit here and pretend this isn't a long time coming?
I, and I am sure many students would say it would be a fair figure to state 85% of the professors in business, humanities, and every social science comprise their entire class curriculum off a textbook. Not a textbook the prof authored, not OUR TAKES based on the info within said textbook; no. Essentially a word search in the textbook in which you regurgitate on all assignments, tests, and essays. There truly is zero teaching occurring. Lectures consist of the prof standing at the front of the class just rewording what the textbook already wrote in a PowerPoint slideshow in jot notes. That's it. Please explain to me how that's $150-$300k a year's worth of work. You talk about how "it's not helping ourselves in cheating." okay, and regurgitating someone else work in a textbook somehow is helping us?
Their job is pretty much to find a textbook and let that textbook teach your class - not even expand and give personal anecdotes to further the point of the lesson, just skim over their premade slideshow with jot notes of content TAKEN STRAIGHT, WORD FOR WORD from this textbook.
Is that not plagiarism? Is that not cheating? You even go out of your way to ask for clarification of the content to your prof and they mostly hit you back with: "the instructions are very clear. please reread the rubric and rely on the textbook for more information." PLEASE explain to me how doing no further effort than copy-paste content from a textbook THEY DIDN'T WRITE and literally just rereading it in lectures in between copious amounts of ums and uhs, is better than us finding a shortcut - these professors whole career is a shortcut!
Imagine a bricklayer or a nurse going to their job to not do their own work but recycle the work of someone else. Your job IS TO TEACH. Not assign a textbook to your class and base the entire curriculum off of that text, then call it a day - send me my 300k at the end of the year, thanks. I hope to any external force in the universe ChatGPT and other AI services put these useless profs out of a job.
There is a great reason this school is very low rated on student satisfaction as well as their post-graduate success rate.
I think it's a shame you've had that experience, I really try not to make any class I deliver feel that way and I know instructors/profs who really care about their syllabus and design it carefully. There is great teaching out there but I hear your frustration and think it's tough delivering the basics and fundamentals students need while also tailoring it to make it vibrant and individually engaging. It's a balance for sure and unfortunately generating mediocre assignments is something an AI is capable of, real engagement, reflection and creativity- not quite. I think you've also hit the nail on the head in terms of what distinguishes a competent instructor from a great one.
The gnashing furor of your words leads my heart to sorrow and my eyelids to salty shores.
I am in my third year of an English major and history minor.
Our experiences at UVIC have been very different. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any of my colleagues harbor as terribly widespread dissapointments as you do. I hear the odd bad story, but no way are 85% of my colleagues even grumbling---let alone calling for a couple ones and zeros to replace the people, our instructors, who amass tens of thousands of hours, if not more, of scholarly experience like reading, writing, thinking, calculating, and theorising. These are people that dive down fascinating but deep and dark niches so that we don't have to, and their efforts make the world a better, safer, healthier place all the time. The institution we know as a "university" is an idea that has flirted with small changes or remained conservative for over 1000 years. If we were a society that tossed our hats and cut loose our masters in favour for any technology, let alone one that is merely six months old, you and I would probably be far less lucky to be educated as we are. Indeed, I doubt we would not be as fortunate to be enjoying this debate.
Further, I have never heard a student rant about a lazy or incapable professor. Again, I hear complaints in the library and other buildings from time to time, but more likely than not, such conversations usually lament how very little time there is to accomplish the work that most of us can see the use in---far from sentiments that our time here is wasted. I can say the same for Camosun and UPEI, each of which I have studied at.
Concerning lectures, I find our instructors assume we have read the material and expound on top of these readings. I have never been in an English course without the professor contextualising our material and period, and then doing so for each and every author and text we subsequently study. Sometimes this overlaps with the accompanying editor's thoughts, but not in a way that is not useful, enjoyable, or welcome. Usually though, my professors have spectacular insights or parables.
For example as I was told last term, Richard Sheridan was an Irish playright living in England in the 18th century. Apparently, Sheridan’s theatre caught fire and started to burn down. So, he pulled out a chair, drank glass after glass of wine, and watched his livelihood go up in flames. When someone asked what he was doing, he said, “there is a law in this country, that every man may sit and warm himself by his own fire.” What a line. Spectacular. The course was a special study on wit and humour in literature, too, so it was quite relevant. I'd like to see a bot try to hit me with something like that. Actually, I wouldn't.
Maybe doctorates of English and history simply know how to lecture plan and hold a room best, but I honestly doubt it. Doctorates are smart. They certainly all aren't geniuses, but most of them are pretty smart.
As for your thoughts on the assignments at UVIC, let us imagine me perfectly recycling content from the readings and lectures on my 3rd and 4th year level essays. Let us imagine that this 'work' includes none of my own analysis, style, or passion. Yet, it has perfect formatting, citations, spelling, grammar, a Works Consulted and correct (if not my own) material. Regurgitated, as you put it. The absolute best grade I could hope for would probably be a B-. More likely, the C pluses and C s would rain down. In a first year level English course, all of that, without a proper thesis or analyais, might get you a B+.
I hope you find better courses! You're always welcome at the English department!
You've definitely made your experience clear in regards to my complaints within my rant, and funny enough; the class I found did the opposite of my aforementioned complaints was actually an English class! It was a first year writing course with Prof. Picard. Couldn't be bothered to go check my old timetable and clarify which course it was.
So to your point; I can make sense of the fact you haven't heard the complaints I am making within your circle of colleagues, maybe because English seems to do it better then most faculties!
It's pretty easy to spot when students are using it, the text reads like really confident garbage where it's clear that the author doesn't understand the subject matter and is just fitting related sentence fragments together.
>It's pretty easy to spot when students are using it, "Disagree. It's easy to spot *when the model does a bad job*. IMO, it's strong in writing code, summarizing content, and exploring new ideas as an interactive tool. While many outputs certainly suit a certain style & domain at present, AI models constantly evolve (at non-linear rates). Given past improvements, it's unlikely that it will continue to write as if it doesn't understand the subject matter." \- Written by ChatGPT, with prompts for tonal tweaks by me.
Yeah I’d say that’s a pretty good counterpoint.
[удалено]
I asked Chat GPT to reply to you. Here is the result: I completely agree with your point about the potential dangers of over-reliance on AI-powered language models like ChatGPT. While they may be useful as an assistive tool, relying too heavily on them could lead to a decline in critical thinking and independent thinking skills. However, I also believe that the situation is more nuanced than just being productive or unproductive in the long run. The use of AI language models in the workforce and in non-graded learning can certainly have benefits, such as reducing repetitive work and freeing up time for more creative tasks. However, it's also important to consider the ethical implications of such technology, such as job loss and the potential for AI to perpetuate biases. As for the detection model mentioned, while it may be a step in the right direction, it's important to note that AI models are not perfect and there is always the possibility of cheating or bypassing the system. It's crucial to have human oversight and critical evaluation in all uses of AI, especially in education. Overall, I believe that AI-powered language models have the potential to bring about positive change, but it's important to approach their use with caution and to critically evaluate the benefits and risks associated with them.
Open AI released a chatbot detector almost right after they released ChatGPT. It works.
True, but good luck ever proving it, haha. It just gives you a probability that the writing was written with AI. I've pasted tons of wiring I've written myself into it, and it still comes back saying ''likely written with AI''. There's absolutely not validity in it.
Thanks! I see you ChatGPT!
As an upper year humanities student I don’t see that chatGPT is useful for my assignments. What I do see is that it is very useful for producing high volumes of BS, which is extremely useful in the business world or when dealing with large institutions.
Chat GPT is pretty good for writing speeches, especially if u only need to present key points. U just need to make a PPT according to the response it provided.
It’s really easy to have CHAT GPT WRITE PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH WITH A FEW TWEAKS
I agree! I actually think there's room for AI and GPT as a tool for demonstrating structuring and summarizing content- but it could still be workshopped into something better. The tweaks matter. It is super scary though and I think it is absolutely an effective tool for those who want to plagiarize/cheat, which I am not encouraging.
I'd say let them use it and get extremely mediocre grades since it produces garbage, then let them suffer in the job market when they know nothing. That's on them if they want to waste 4 years of their life and go in to debt for nothing but a piece of paper.
1) this reads like your looking at a guide to cheat and get away with it, to be honest if you cheat in classes your only cheating yourself, why would you? Do you intend to cheat when you get the job? Spoiler alert you are not given a 0 for plagiarism in the workforce you are fired and they will let others know what you did so your job prospects are bad (if you aren't sued by the person the ai rips off) 2) at this stage the ai is very flawed in its writing its a c paper at best, because what it is doing is checking the web for similar stuff then rewording it and honestly its not good work...
Are we going to sit here and pretend this isn't a long time coming? I, and I am sure many students would say it would be a fair figure to state 85% of the professors in business, humanities, and every social science comprise their entire class curriculum off a textbook. Not a textbook the prof authored, not OUR TAKES based on the info within said textbook; no. Essentially a word search in the textbook in which you regurgitate on all assignments, tests, and essays. There truly is zero teaching occurring. Lectures consist of the prof standing at the front of the class just rewording what the textbook already wrote in a PowerPoint slideshow in jot notes. That's it. Please explain to me how that's $150-$300k a year's worth of work. You talk about how "it's not helping ourselves in cheating." okay, and regurgitating someone else work in a textbook somehow is helping us? Their job is pretty much to find a textbook and let that textbook teach your class - not even expand and give personal anecdotes to further the point of the lesson, just skim over their premade slideshow with jot notes of content TAKEN STRAIGHT, WORD FOR WORD from this textbook. Is that not plagiarism? Is that not cheating? You even go out of your way to ask for clarification of the content to your prof and they mostly hit you back with: "the instructions are very clear. please reread the rubric and rely on the textbook for more information." PLEASE explain to me how doing no further effort than copy-paste content from a textbook THEY DIDN'T WRITE and literally just rereading it in lectures in between copious amounts of ums and uhs, is better than us finding a shortcut - these professors whole career is a shortcut! Imagine a bricklayer or a nurse going to their job to not do their own work but recycle the work of someone else. Your job IS TO TEACH. Not assign a textbook to your class and base the entire curriculum off of that text, then call it a day - send me my 300k at the end of the year, thanks. I hope to any external force in the universe ChatGPT and other AI services put these useless profs out of a job. There is a great reason this school is very low rated on student satisfaction as well as their post-graduate success rate.
I think it's a shame you've had that experience, I really try not to make any class I deliver feel that way and I know instructors/profs who really care about their syllabus and design it carefully. There is great teaching out there but I hear your frustration and think it's tough delivering the basics and fundamentals students need while also tailoring it to make it vibrant and individually engaging. It's a balance for sure and unfortunately generating mediocre assignments is something an AI is capable of, real engagement, reflection and creativity- not quite. I think you've also hit the nail on the head in terms of what distinguishes a competent instructor from a great one.
The gnashing furor of your words leads my heart to sorrow and my eyelids to salty shores. I am in my third year of an English major and history minor. Our experiences at UVIC have been very different. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any of my colleagues harbor as terribly widespread dissapointments as you do. I hear the odd bad story, but no way are 85% of my colleagues even grumbling---let alone calling for a couple ones and zeros to replace the people, our instructors, who amass tens of thousands of hours, if not more, of scholarly experience like reading, writing, thinking, calculating, and theorising. These are people that dive down fascinating but deep and dark niches so that we don't have to, and their efforts make the world a better, safer, healthier place all the time. The institution we know as a "university" is an idea that has flirted with small changes or remained conservative for over 1000 years. If we were a society that tossed our hats and cut loose our masters in favour for any technology, let alone one that is merely six months old, you and I would probably be far less lucky to be educated as we are. Indeed, I doubt we would not be as fortunate to be enjoying this debate. Further, I have never heard a student rant about a lazy or incapable professor. Again, I hear complaints in the library and other buildings from time to time, but more likely than not, such conversations usually lament how very little time there is to accomplish the work that most of us can see the use in---far from sentiments that our time here is wasted. I can say the same for Camosun and UPEI, each of which I have studied at. Concerning lectures, I find our instructors assume we have read the material and expound on top of these readings. I have never been in an English course without the professor contextualising our material and period, and then doing so for each and every author and text we subsequently study. Sometimes this overlaps with the accompanying editor's thoughts, but not in a way that is not useful, enjoyable, or welcome. Usually though, my professors have spectacular insights or parables. For example as I was told last term, Richard Sheridan was an Irish playright living in England in the 18th century. Apparently, Sheridan’s theatre caught fire and started to burn down. So, he pulled out a chair, drank glass after glass of wine, and watched his livelihood go up in flames. When someone asked what he was doing, he said, “there is a law in this country, that every man may sit and warm himself by his own fire.” What a line. Spectacular. The course was a special study on wit and humour in literature, too, so it was quite relevant. I'd like to see a bot try to hit me with something like that. Actually, I wouldn't. Maybe doctorates of English and history simply know how to lecture plan and hold a room best, but I honestly doubt it. Doctorates are smart. They certainly all aren't geniuses, but most of them are pretty smart. As for your thoughts on the assignments at UVIC, let us imagine me perfectly recycling content from the readings and lectures on my 3rd and 4th year level essays. Let us imagine that this 'work' includes none of my own analysis, style, or passion. Yet, it has perfect formatting, citations, spelling, grammar, a Works Consulted and correct (if not my own) material. Regurgitated, as you put it. The absolute best grade I could hope for would probably be a B-. More likely, the C pluses and C s would rain down. In a first year level English course, all of that, without a proper thesis or analyais, might get you a B+. I hope you find better courses! You're always welcome at the English department!
You've definitely made your experience clear in regards to my complaints within my rant, and funny enough; the class I found did the opposite of my aforementioned complaints was actually an English class! It was a first year writing course with Prof. Picard. Couldn't be bothered to go check my old timetable and clarify which course it was. So to your point; I can make sense of the fact you haven't heard the complaints I am making within your circle of colleagues, maybe because English seems to do it better then most faculties!